This court directed the school manager to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of it effectively and expeditiously by affording him an opportunity of hearing.
Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of it after affording an opportunity of hearing within one month.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 1ST POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.28795 OF 2020(Y)
PETITIONER:
MAHESH THAMPI AGED 38 YEARS S/O.THAMPI, UMBAKKATTU HOUSE, NATTASSERY, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENTS:
2 THE MANAGER, S.N.D.P.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KILIROOR, S.N.ROAD, KANJIRAM P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 020.
SMT.NISHA BOSE,SR.GP , SRI.M.V. THAMPAN, R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.28795 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is stated to be
working as a Drawing Teacher in the S.N.D.P. Higher Secondary School, Kiliroor - which is managed by the 2nd respondent - has approached this Court asserting that the 3rd respondent – Deputy Director of Education is bound in duty to consider Ext.P7 – Appeal and Ext.P8 – Stay Petition filed by him against the order of suspension issued by the Manager; but when this matter was called today, his learned counsel - Shri.C.S.Manilal confined his plea that the 2nd respondent – Manager be directed
to take up and pass orders on Ext.P10
representation filed by his client within a short period.
Ext.P10 representation; but prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative
WP(C).No.28795 OF 2020 3
declarations in favour of the petitioner, since the allegations made against him are grave, warranting serious action.
Pleader, Smt.Nisha Bose, submitted that since the petitioner has already approached the Manager through Ext.P10 and since he is the competent Authority to revoke the suspension, there is no reason why the petitioner should
seek Ext.P7 – Appeal and Ext.P8 – Stay Petition to be disposed of by the 3rd respondent. She, therefore, prayed that this Court may direct the Manger to consider Ext.P10 first before any action is ordered on Ext.P7 – Appeal and Ext.P8 – Stay Petition
In the afore circumstances and taking note of the rather limited plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I order this writ petition and direct the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P10 representation of the petitioner and dispose it of, after
WP(C).No.28795 OF 2020 4
affording him an opportunity of being heard –
either physically or through video conferencing – thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon – as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/23.12.2020
WP(C).No.28795 OF 2020 5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE THE 2ND RESPONDEN |
SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED BY T DATED 15/2/2020. |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.M.P.NO.921/20 SESSION, KOTTAYAM |
ORDER DATED 23/7/2020 IN 20 PASSED BY THE COURT OF . |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE 2ND SUSPENSION FROM 2 |
ORDER DATED 21/4/2020 RESPONDENT, EXTENDED THE 7/2/2020 TO 31/8/2020. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT. |
REQUEST DATED 30/7/2020 PETITIONER TO THE 2ND |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT. |
REQUEST DATED 30/7/2020 PETITIONER TO THE 1ST |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED |
ORDER OF THE 1ST 7/12/2020. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED |
APPEAL MEMORANDUM PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD 9/12/2020. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE EXT.P6 ORDER SUBM RESPONDENT. |
PETITION FOR STAY OF ITTED BEFORE THE 3RD |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE 1/12/2020. |
CHARGE MEMO DATED |
| EXHIBIT P10 RESPONDENT'S/S E |
TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 1/12/2020 S BEFORE THE RESPON XHIBITS: |
REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER UBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DENTS. |
| NIL |
MC
(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Manager of the school must consider the petitioner's representation before acting on pending appeal petitions filed by the petitioner.
MAHESH THAMPI
THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOTTAYAM
THE MANAGER, S.N.D.P.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KILIROOR
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
