Disposed

Jibi Susan Kurian v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2016WP(C)/1318/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an order staying a statutory revision pending litigation on the teachers package, directing the Director of Public Instructions to consider the revision on merits after hearing affected parties within two months.

What did the court decide?

Order Ext.P11 setting aside revision stayed; revision to be considered on merits within two months against hearing affected parties.

Jibi Susan Kurian Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1318 of 2016 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JIBI SUSAN KURIAN AGED 37 YEARS W/O SHAJAN KURIAN, THOOMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KALAKKATTY P O KOTTAYAM 686 508 (HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHS) CMS HIGH SCHOOL MUNDAKKAYAM)

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA 689 101

¶13

DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA 689 101

¶14

CORPORATE MANAGER, CMS SCHOOLS, DIOCESE OF MADHYA KERALA DIOCESAN OFFICE, BISHOP GILLMEMORIL BUILDING, CATZHEDRAL ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001

¶15

R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M J RAJASREE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WPC NO.1318/2016

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT 1.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 5^TH RESPONDENT

¶21

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.6.2012 PASSED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT

¶22

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 5.10.2012 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT

¶23

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 17.4.2013 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT

¶24

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER DT 11.3.2015 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT

¶25

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.5.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4

¶26

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT 23.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT

¶27

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 3.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT

¶28

EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT 24.6.2014 ISSUED BY THE 5^TH RESPONDENT

¶29

EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY REVISION PETITION DT 6.9.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2^ND RESPONDENT (EXCLUDING ANNEXURE)

¶30

EXT.P10(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 27.11.2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 35939/2015

¶31

EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 8.12.2015 PASSED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT

¶32

EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY REVISION PETITION DT 24.12.2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (EXECLUDING ANNEXURE)

¶33

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 1318 of 2016

¶39

¶40

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2016

¶41

The petitioner had filed Ext.P10 revision before the DPI

¶42

against Ext.P6 order and had also approached this Court. This Court by Ext.P10(a) judgment directed consideration of the revision. The judgment was dated 27.11.2015. On 08.12.2015, the DPI has passed an order at Ext.P11 finding that since the teachers package has been challenged before this Court and the writ petitions are pending, the revision cannot be considered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved does not relate to the teachers package at all. In such circumstance, Ext.P11 is set aside also noticing the fact that the writ petitions challenging the teachers package have also been disposed of. The revision shall be considered on merits, after hearing all affected parties within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶44

Sd/(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶45

jma

¶46

//true copy//

¶47

P. A to Judge

Jibi Susan Kurian v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jibi Susan Kurian 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

Satheesh P.V Vs Dr.a Kowsigan

Aneesh M.V. Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Chief Secretary to Government Vs P.Kochuneelakantan

Rajeesh Kumar G. Vs State of Kerala

Sethunath K.R. Vs Union of India

C.R.Pradeep Vs Ranni Perunadu Grama Panchayat