Disposed

Rejin.S.Resal v. the Director of Public Instruction

Kerala HC17 Oct 2013WP(C)/23462/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging revision order passed without hearing filed writ petition. Court found no mandatory provision for hearing and no prejudice established. W.P. disposed directing State to consider pending government concern within three months with notice to institution.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to State Government to consider the pending revision petition and pass appropriate orders within three months with notice to the institution.

Rejin.S.Resal Vs the Director of Public Instruction — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/25TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 23462 of 2013 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

REJIN.S.RASAL

¶8

H.S.A. (ENGLISH), LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL SOUTH ARYAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶12

THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶14

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALAPPUZHA - 688 005

¶15

THE MANAGER LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL, SOUTH ARYAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695682

¶16

6.STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695682

¶18

*(IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.6 AS PER ORDER DATED 17.10.2013 IN I.A.NO.13556/2013.)

¶19

R1 TO 4 & 6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

(THE ADDRESSES OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT HAVE BEEN CORRECTED BY SUBSTITUTING THE WORD 'ALAPPUZHA' IN THE PLACE OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AS PER ORDER DATED 17.10.2013 IN I.A.NO.13556/2013)

¶22

WP(C).No. 23462 of 2013 (G)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1-6-2010.

¶26

EXT.P2 -TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO. B3/3536/10/K.DIS. DATED 30-12-2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12-10-2011.

¶28

EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 25-10-2011.

¶29

EXT.P5 -TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-12-2012 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 13.9.2013.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶32

//TRUE COPY//

¶33

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶34

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶35

==========================

¶36

W.P.(C). No.23462 OF 2013 ==========================

¶37

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2013

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner is working as H.S.A (English) in Lutheran High School, Thiruvananthapuram. He was appointed as such as per Ext.P1 order dated 1.6.2010. The said appointment was declined to be approved by the fourth respondent as per Ext.P2. The petitioner took up the matter before the third respondent and the third respondent rejected it and confirmed the decision in Ext.P2 as per Ext.P3. He took up the matter further in revision before the first respondent vide Ext.P4. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 revision petition was dismissed by the second respondent as per Ext.P5 without hearing him. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 on the ground of being violative of the salutary principles of natural justice. Subsequent to the filing of this

¶40

W.P.(C).23462/13

¶41

¶42

writ petition, the petitioner moved I.A.Nos.13555 and 13556 of 2013. I.A.No.13555 of 2013 has been filed for accepting Ext.P6 into file and I.A.No.13556 of 2013 has been filed for impleading the State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary to Government, General Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram as additional sixth respondent in the writ petition.

¶43

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition especially taking note of the fact that the petitioner has now moved the Government through Ext.P6 I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the fifth respondent in this proceedings. As noticed hereinbefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 order was passed without hearing him. Though such a contention was taken up by the petitioner, he has failed to substantiate the same. In other words, the petitioner has failed to establish that Ext.P5 has to be interfered with merely on the ground that it was passed without affording him an opportunity of being heard. No provision has been

¶44

W.P.(C).23462/13

¶45

¶46

brought to my notice making it mandatory to afford an opportunity of being heard before passing orders on revision petition. That apart, an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be interfered only if prejudice is shown to have been caused on account of denial of opportunity of being heard. For the foregoing reasons, I do not propose to uphold the challenge against Ext.P5 solely on the ground that it was passed without hearing the petitioner. At any rate, I do not think that this Court should go into that question any further taking note of the fact that raising all his grievances against Ext.P5 the petitioner has moved the Government through Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is now pending before the additional sixth respondent. In such circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the sixth respondent to consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and in accordance with law. Needless to say that before passing orders thereon the fifth

¶47

W.P.(C).23462/13

¶48

¶49

respondent shall also be put on notice. To enable the sixth respondent to consider Ext.P6, the petitioner shall produce a copy of this

¶50

judgment before the sixth respondent.

¶51

Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)

¶52

spc/

¶53

The word 'Thiruvananthapuram' occurring in the 1^st sentence in the judgment dated 17.10.2013 in W.P.(C).No.23462 of 2013(G) is corrected as 'Alappuzha' as per order dated 01.01.2014 in I.A.No.17023 of 2013.

¶54

Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)

¶55

W.P.(C).23462/13

¶56

¶57

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶58

JUDGMENT

¶59

September, 2010

¶60

W.P.(C).23462/13 6

Rejin.S.Resal v. the Director of Public Instruction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rejin.S.Resal v. the Director of Public Instruction

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

Simi Paul Vs the State of Kerala

Bijoy Kumar v., S/O.Velayudhan Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Mohammed a. Vs State of Kerala

Jahangir Kasim Vs State of Kerala

P.K. Sivasankaran Vs Sitaram Textiles Ltd.

N. Ramaswamy Vs State of Kerala