Review petition filed against a writ petition order where the petitioner claimed an error in directing a specific respondent to consider exhibits. The Court, without expressing an opinion on merit, directed the third respondent to consider specified exhibits within two months while keeping other directions intact.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/19TH JYAISHTA, 1937
RP.No. 473 of 2015 (V) IN WP(C).9979/2015 ------------------------------------------IN WP(C) 9979/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/WRIT PETITIONER:
------------------------------------
K.SARITHA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O. LATE V.NARAYANANKUTTY, BODHI, ODAMPILLY SUB LANE, IRINJALAKUDA - 680 121, THRISSUR, LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER SISU VIDYA POSHINI LOWER PRIMARY (SVP LP SCHOOL), ERIYAD, KODUNGALLUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN, SRI.SEBIN THOMAS & SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
---------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETAIRAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR - 680 664.
4. SISU VIDYA POSHINI LOWER PRIMARY (SVP LP SCHOOL), ERIYAD, KODUNGALLUR - 680 666
5. E.K.HAJARA,
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R.RENJITH
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rvs.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
------------------------------------------------ Review Petition No.473 of 2015 in
W.P.(C).No. 9979 of 2015
Dated this the 9th day of June,2015
-------------------------
The writ petitioner filed this review for the reason that there is an error apparent in the judgment while disposing the writ petition. It is pointed out that this Court has only directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of Exts.P10. It is also submitted that Exts.P2, P3, P13 and P20 are to be considered by the 3rd respondent.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
jm/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an error apparent on the face of the judgment requires consideration of specific exhibits by a different respondent.
Whether the Review Petition seeking reconsideration of exhibits disposed under the previous writ petition is maintainable in its current form.
K.Saritha
State of Kerala
Director of Public Instruction
Assistant Education Officer, Kodungallur
Sisu Vidya Poshini Lower Primary School
E.K.Hajara
A.Muhamad Mustaque
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
