Disposed

Gopamkumar.C.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2013WP(C)/23490/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a school principal, challenged a government order limiting his appointment approval to a later date. Seeking relief against delay, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the government to consider and pass orders on his pending representation within three months, with notice to the school manager.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's pending representation (Ext.P6) expeditiously within three months from the receipt of this judgment, with th

Gopamkumar.C.S. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/1ST KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 23490 of 2013 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

GOPAMKUMAR.C.S., AGED 50 YEARS,

¶8

S/O.C.K.SUKUMARAN NAIR, PRINCIPAL, S.K.H.S.SCHOOL, NALLEPILLY P.O., PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT RAHUL VILLA, AGRAHARAM, NALLEPPILLY, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

4. THE MANAGER,

¶15

S.K.H.S.SCHOOL, NALLEPILLY P.O., PALAKKAD-678 553.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).No. 23490 of 2013 (I)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(MS)128/10/G.EDN. DATED 20.07.2010.

¶23

P2: COPY OF GOVT. ORDER NO.GO(MS) 211/2011/G.EDN. DATED 24.10.2011.

¶24

P3: COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF 4TH RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 1.12.2011.

¶25

P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE DEO, PALAKKAD TO THE PETITIONER AND MANAGER WITH JOINING REPORT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM DATED 3.9.2012 ISSUED TO THE MANAGER AND THE PETITIONER.

¶27

P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 19.9.2013.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

C.T.RAVIKUMAR.J.

================= W.P.C.NO.23490 OF 2013 =====================

¶34

Dated this the 23^rd day of October 2013.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is working as Principal in S.K.H.S.School, Nallepilly in Palakkad District under the 4^th respondent. The petitioner has commenced his service under the 4^th respondent as High School Assistant and later, he was promoted to the post of Headmaster. While working so, he was appointed by transfer as Principal of the Higher Secondary School under the 4^th respondent with effect from 01.12.2011. However, the 3^rd respondent approved the appointment of the petitioner as Principal only with effect from 23.02.2013 as per Ext.P5. The contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to get his appointment approved with effect from 01.02.2011. In the said circumstances, raising grievances against Ext.P5 to the extent it limits approval to his appointment as Principal only from 22.02.2013 the petitioner moved Ext.P6 representation before the Government and it is still pending before the Government. It is the delay in taking a decision on Ext.P6 that constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the captioned writ petition.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Issuance of

¶38

¶39

W.P.C.NO.23490 OF 2013

¶40

notice to the 4^th respondent in this proceedings is unnecessary in view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition. Taking note of the pendency of Ext.P6 filed by the petitioner raising grievances against Ext.P5 this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that before passing orders thereon the 4^th respondent shall also be put on notice.

¶41

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶42

R.AV

Gopamkumar.C.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopamkumar.C.S. v. 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

Santers Baby Vs State of Kerala

Parent Teacher Association Vs State of Kerala

Jayadev G.Pai Vs State of Kerala

P.G.Prasad Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

M.E Raman Vs State of Kerala

I.Ibrahim Vs Regional Deputy Director