This is a contempt of court case where the petitioner alleged violation of directions to appoint a competent school manager. The court held the respondent's action constituted substantial compliance and closed the matter.
The Contempt of Court Case is closed. Liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the respondent's order if advised.
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 N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942 Con.Case(C).No.2158 OF 2020 IN WP(C)No.37830/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)No.37830/2017(C) DATED 02.04.2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
T.D.RAVEENDRANATHAN KARTHA, AGED 91 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN POTTI, THURUTHIKKADU, THURAVOOR P.O, CHERTHALA, NOW RESIDING AT PULIKKILLATHU HOUSE, NEAR SATELLITE TOWNSHIP, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM - 682 030
BY ADVS. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH SRI.V.S.NOWSHAD
RESPONDENT:
N.SUJAYA, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 524
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
COC No.2158/2020
: 2 :
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2021
The Contempt of Court Case has been filed by the
petitioner alleging that the respondent has violated the directions of this Court contained in judgment dated 02.04.2019 in W.P.(C) No.37830/2017. This Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:-
“In the circumstances, I set aside Ext.P1 order of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent shall re-consider the issue of appointment of Manager and select a person as Manager, taking into account the ability and competency of candidate/s and the interest of the school and the students. I make it clear that I have not pronounced anything on merits, on the eligibility or otherwise of the 5th respondent to get appointed as Manager. Till such a decision is taken, the 5th respondent will continue to act as Manager. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of three months.”
Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondent has
passed Annexure-E order dated 03.09.2019.
COC No.2158/2020
: 3 :
would show that the respondent has, in pursuance of the
COC No.2158/2020
: 4 :
directions of this Court, heard the parties to the dispute and passed Annexure-E order. In the order, the respondent has stated that the person now selected as Manager of the School pursuant to the directions of this Court is competent and satisfying the requirements of Rule 8(4) of Chapter III of the KER. The respondent also found that the selectee does not suffer from any disability arising from Rule 3A. The respondent further noted that there is no complaint regarding administration of the School by the selectee. It was also noted that the selectee has been administering the School to the satisfaction of the respondent for the last two years. Accordingly, the respondent found that the selectee is competent to be appointed as the Manager of the School.
COC No.2158/2020
: 5 :
As there is time bound compliance of the judgment
of this Court, this Contempt of Court Case is closed granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge Annexure-E order, if he is
so advised.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/17.02.2021
COC No.2158/2020
: 6 :
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2-42019 IN WP(C) NO. 37830/17 ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 2-09-2019 OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 2-092019 OF ADV. R. MURALEEKRISHNAN ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 1-09-2019 OF CHAMMANADU DEVASWOM. ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3-09-2019 OF THE RESPONDENT.
SR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent's subsequent order substantially complied with the court's earlier directions regarding the appointment of a school manager.
T.D.Raveendranathan Kartha
N.Sujaya
N. Nagareth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
