Dismissed

V.v.Prabhakaran v. the Secretary

Kerala HC18 Oct 2016WP(C)/34114/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an additional teacher's appointment as vitiated by her alleged failure to produce original certificates. The court stayed its hand on the merits, relying on a police report that identified personal enmity and seniority disputes as the petition's motivation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for a direction to consider the representation was denied.

V.v.Prabhakaran Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 34114 of 2014 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V.V.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. LATE KANDANKODAN KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, SECRETARY, JANAKEEYA PRATHIKARANA VEDI, KANNUR, P.O. MUNDAYAD, KANNUR - 670 594.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI SMT.ANILA GEORGE SMT.T.C.MARYKUTTY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

*** ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED**

¶12

2. SATHYAVATHI P.P. TEACHER, MADRASSA SIRAJUL ULOOM U.P SCHOOL, ANAYIDUKKU, KANNUR - 670 003. ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/1/2015 IN IA.723/2015 * ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER , KANNUR [NORTH]. ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER ORDER DATED 27/3/2015

¶13

R1 & 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 34114 of 2014 (L)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07/10/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/12/2013 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE HEADMASTER OF THE SCHOOL ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03/03/2014 SUBMITTED TO THE SUPER CHECK OFFICER, SUPER CHECK CELL (EDUCATION)

¶22

EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/07/2014 GIVEN TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) KANNUR AT THALASSERY DATED 7/5/97

¶24

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 23/2/15

¶25

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ABOUT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE JANAKEEYA PRATHIKARANA VEDI WAS HELD AT GOVT.U.P.SHCOOL THAVAKKARA

¶26

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UTKAL UNIVERSITY DATED 25/4/14.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶33

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.34114 of 2014

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

1.The petitioner's prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 representation preferred by the petitioner before the Secretary to Government, General Education Department. The allegation raised in Ext.P1 was to the effect that the additional 2^nd respondent's appointment as Assistant Teacher was vitiated, since she had not produced the original of her BA and B.Ed certificates at the time of her appointment.

¶38

2.The petitioner relies on Ext.P2 communication received from the Headmaster stating that only provisional certificates had been made available by the additional 2^nd respondent at the time of her appointment. It is contended that the petitioner is a public spirited person and he is interested in seeing that no illegal appointments are made which is cited as the reason for his preferring Ext.P1 before the Government.

¶39

W.P.(C).No.34114/14

¶40

¶41

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent as well as the additional 2^nd respondent.

¶42

4.It is seen that by order dated 10.04.2015, this Court had taken note of the contentions raised by the additional 2^nd respondent and the AEO to the effect that there was a personal grudge between the additional 2^nd respondent and the Headmaster of the school and that this writ petition was filed as a result of this grudge. In the above view of the matter, the District Police Officer, Kannur was directed to conduct an enquiry and to file a report regarding the antecedents of the petitioner as also enquire into the allegation of conspiracy with any other person. Though this order was taken in appeal, the said appeal was dismissed and a report has been placed on record by the District Police Officer. It is stated in the report that there was seniority dispute between one P.K.Anil and the additional 2^nd respondent with regard to appointment to the post of Headmaster and such dispute had escalated to personal

¶43

W.P.(C).No.34114/14

¶44

¶45

allegations against each other. No adverse remarks are found against the antecedents or character of the petitioner except to state that he is a man of aggressive nature, over reactive to simple issues and is quarrelsome. The report also does not reveal any clear complicity between the petitioner and Sri.T.K.Anil apart from an inference that the said person may have influenced the petitioner.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the additional 2^nd respondent would submit that the complaint preferred by the petitioner had already been taken note of by the Director of Public Instructions and Exhibit R2(g) order had already been passed after conducting due investigation into the qualification of the additional 2^nd respondent. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶47

sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶48

sj20/10

V.v.Prabhakaran v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.v.Prabhakaran v. the Secretary

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

Joji K.John Vs State of Kerala

Saraswathy Vs the State of Kerala

Jasheela K. Vs the Deputy Director of Education

Manju Azeez Vs Kerala State Electricity Board & Others

M.K.Sudha Bhai Vs the Accountant General (a&E)

A.V. Kamalakshi Vs the Executive Officer