Disposed

The Manager, Aided U.P. School, Moolangod v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jan 2015WP(C)/814/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court observed that the Government had demonstrated willingness to conduct an enquiry into the Headmistress suspension but found the two-week time limit insufficient. It directed the Director of Public Instruction to conduct a full-fledged enquiry within two months before reporting to the Government.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. The Director of Public Instructions is directed to conduct full-fledged enquiry within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing th

The Manager, Aided U.P. School, Moolangod Vs State… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/30TH POUSHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 814 of 2015 (B) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE MANAGER, AIDED U.P. SCHOOL, MOOLANGOD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,ALATHUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 678 541

¶12

K.V SHAILAJA, HEADMISTRESS, AIDED U.P SCHOOL, MOOLANGOD PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 678 684

¶13

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 814 of 2015 (B) --------------------------

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-05-2014 OF THE DIVISION BENCH IN WA NO 429/2014 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES ALONG WITH CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST,DATED 16-01-2013 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02-08-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 1708-2014 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-11-2014 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------: NIL

¶20

/TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶21

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶22

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 814 OF 2015

¶23

¶24

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2015

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner is the Manager of an aided U.P. School, Moolangod. The manager initiated enquiry proceedings against the 3^rd respondent-Headmistress of the school in terms of Chapter 14A Rule 75 of KER. However, the AEO, by Ext.P3, instead of conducting enquiry, passed an order with a message to the parties concerned to reach at compromise and sustain

¶27

co-operation among the management, teachers, etc. The petitioner, thereafter, moved the Government in revision by Ext.P4. By Est.P5, the Government directed the petitioner to file revision petition before the next higher level. Challenging this order, the writ petition is filed.

¶28

The learned Government Pleader placed before me a communication dated 19/1/2015 issued by the Secretary to Government, which reads as follows:

¶29

W.P.(c).No.814 of 2015

¶30

: 2 :

¶31

“Inviting attention to the reference cited, I am to inform you that the direction of the Hon.Court in the Judgment in WA 429/14 is to the Manager, AUPS, Mollangod to regularise the period of suspension of the Headmistress. But the Manager demanded further enquiry through the Assistant Educational Officer. The Assistant Educational Officer tendered the enquiry report, but the manager is not willing to accept it and he approached Government to cancel the enquiry report and institute a fresh enquiry by Government. Hence Government directed the manager to approach the next higher authority i.e. Deputy Director of Education /Director of Public Instruction.

¶32

Government have examined further this case and entrusted the Director of Public Instruction to conduct an enquiry in this regard and submit a report to Government within two weeks. “

¶33

In view of the willingness of the Government to conduct

¶34

enquiry, I am of the view that no further orders are required. However, I am of the opinion that the time given to the Director of Public Instruction to conduct enquiry is too short. Therefore, the Director of Public Instructions shall conduct full fledged enquiry in the matter, after hearing the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent and any other affected persons if necessary, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶35

W.P.(c).No.814 of 2015

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

judgment and file a report before the Government in terms of the communication.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Judge.

¶41

dpk

¶42

/true copy/ P.S . to Judge.

The Manager, Aided U.P. School, Moolangod v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager, Aided U.P. School, Moolangod 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

M/S. Kollam Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bimal Julka

A.G.Madhavan Vs Geologist

Ambily M.P. Vs Sree Sankaracharya Univesristy of Sanskrit

Siddique Vs Raghavan

Radhamany K Vs State of Kerala

C.N.Raman Nambuthiri Vs the Cochin Devaswom Board