Disposed

Shaju K.M. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2013WP(C)/22004/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging delay in the disposal of an appeal filed by a teacher. The petitioner alleged misconduct and grievance regarding the delay in the disciplinary order. The court directed the first respondent to consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to consider Ext.P5 (appeal) and pass appropriate orders within three months, putting third respondent on notice.

Shaju K.M. Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/12TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 22004 of 2013 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

K.M. SHAJU, H.S.A.

¶8

ST. JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VADAKARA, OLIAPPURAM P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-695 014.

¶13

3. THE MANAGER,

¶14

ST. JOHN'S SYRIAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VADAKARA, OLIAPPURAM P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, PIN-686 679.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C).No. 22004 of 2013 (A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/5/2012 BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/6/2012.

¶23

P3: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT.

¶24

P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/2/2013 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 DATED 15/3/2013.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J

W.P.(C)No.22004 of 2013

¶33

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2013

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner is working as High School Assistant in St.John's Syrian Higher Secondary School, Vadakara in Koothattukulam. While working as a teacher-in-charge in the said School, she has allegedly committed certain misconducts and based on such allegations, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. After following the mandatory procedures an enquiry was conducted against him and Ext.P3 enquiry report was submitted. Obviously, such disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P4 letter dated 5/2/2013 of the second respondent. Raising grievance against Ext.P4, the petitioner approached the first respondent through Ext.P5. True that, a copy of the same was also forwarded to the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is regrading the delay in the matter of the disposal of Ext.P4.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶37

In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition and taking note of the pendency of Ext.P5 I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the 3^rd respondent in this proceedings.

¶38

W.P.(C)No.22004 of 2013

¶39

¶40

As noticed hereinbefore, raising grievance against Ext.P4 the petitioner has already approached the first respondent. The petitioner described Ext.P5 as an appeal. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the position that a wrong description of a petition cannot be a reason for non-consideration of same in case the subject matter of that petition falls within the jurisdiction of the authority to whom it is addressed. In this case, evidently, in exercise of the powers under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A KER Government are competent to look into the grievances against an order passed by inferior authorities. In that view of the matter, certainly Ext.P5 can be considered as a Revision Petition filed against Ext.P4. In the said circumstances without making any observation as the merits of the contentions this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Needless to say that before passing orders thereon, the 3^rd respondent shall also be put on notice.

¶41

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶42

Shaju K.M. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaju K.M. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Melba Rove Darwin Vs State Bank of Travancore

V.G.Sudhakaran Pillai Vs Union of India

N.C.Krishnan Vs Executive Committee

B.Devarajan Vs Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board

P.Sreeja Ravindran Vs the State of Kerala

Dr. v.M.Monica Vs State of Kerala