Petitioner challenged rejection of his appointment as an aided school manager. High Court disposed petition by directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the revision petition within three months.
Directions issued to 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on revision petition (Ext.P7) within 3 months.
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.
WP(C) NO. 10798 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 10798 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
P.MUHAMMED SHAFI,
AGED 52 YEARS,
SON OF SEETHI, PANANILATH HOUSE, THOTTINTAKKARA, P.O.MAMPAD, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 542.
BY ADV V.A.MUHAMMED
RESPONDENT/S:
WP(C) NO. 10798 OF 2021 2
7 SRI. MOHAMED ALI KAMPURATH, SON OF ALAVI, KAMPURATH HOUSE, THOTTINTAKKARA, MAMPAD, NAILAMBUR-676 542, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10798 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he is the Manager of Shihab Thangal Educational and Charitable Trust, Mampad. The Trust purchased the AMUP School, Mampad, an aided school and immediately thereafter approached the 5th respondent and sought for approval of the petitioner as the Manager of the School. It is contended that the request so made was rejected. Challenging the order, the petitioner is stated to have preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. However, by Ext.P6 order, the appeal stands rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P7 revision petition before the 1st respondent. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions.
WP(C) NO. 10798 OF 2021
4
respondents 6 and 7 is dispensed with.
petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I
am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE
NS
WP(C) NO. 10798 OF 2021 5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10798/2021
PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED DATED 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F/2675/18 DATED 13.08.2018 OF THE AEO, NILAMBUR. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE DEO, WANDOOR DATED 16.11.2020. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A6/3239/20 DATED 21.12.2020 OF THE DEO, WANDOOR. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.12.2020. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G2/154494/2019/DGE/K.DIS DATED 26.02.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 10.03.2021 ALONG WITH STAY PETITION. |
RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS: NIL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue directions to the Government to dispose of the revision petition regarding the appointment as School Manager within a time frame?
P. Muhammed Shafi
State of Kerala
Director of General Education
Deputy Director of Education
District Educational Officer
Assistant Educational Officer
Raja Vijayaraghavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
