Allowed

A.P.Kunhammad v. the District Educational Officer Thalassery

Kerala HC3 Sept 2021WP(C)/16500/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges delay in deciding managership disputes at a school. The Court directed the 1st respondent to consider exhibits P8 and P10 along with the 2nd respondent’s application, hear both parties, and pass orders within two months without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the 1st respondent to consider exhibits P8 and P10 along with the 2nd respondent's application, afford opportunity to both parties for hearing, and pass appropriate orders within

A.P.Kunhammad Vs the District Educational Officer… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 16500 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16500 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

A.P.KUNHAMMAD

¶9

AGED 75 YEARS S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, GENERAL SECRETARY, C.H.MUHAMMED KOYA MEMORIAL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, CHAKKIAT, P.O.THILLANKERI, KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT CHIKKIAT HOUSE, KAVUMPADI, THILLANKERI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 702

¶10

BY ADVS. M.SASINDRAN S.SHYAM KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY THALASSERY, KANNUR-670 001

¶13

2 T.MAJEED, AGED 58 YEARS

¶14

S/O. KUNHAMBU HAJI, BAITH UI FALAH, THILANKERI P.O., IRITTY TLAUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 702

¶15

BY ADVS. R.SURENDRAN S.MAYUKHA

¶16

SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 16500 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

There are disputes between the persons in management of the CH Mohammed Koya Memorial Higher Secondary School. Both the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent claim managership. It appears from Exts.P6 and P9 judgments, that directions were earlier issued by this Court to consider the request. The petitioner contends that Ext.P8 representation submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent is not being considered on the ground that the direction issued by this Court was only to consider the application of the

¶22

2nd respondent. It is in the above backdrop that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶23

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 and P10 expeditiously within two weeks.

¶24

(ii) to command the 1st respondent to consider the Exts.P8 and P10 request for approval of the managership, along with the application made by the 2nd respondent which was directed to be disposed of in Ext.P9 judgment.

¶25

(iii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be approved as Manager of the School, based on the resolution adopted by the committee.

¶26

I have heard Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel appearing for

¶27

the petitioner and Sri.R.Surendran, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

¶28

WP(C) NO. 16500 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his only request is for issuance of directions to the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P8 and P10 request and take a decision expeditiously. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that he has no objection in allowing the said request. However, it is pointed out that the 2nd respondent has already been heard but no orders have been passed to date.

¶31

I have also heard Smt.Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader who submits that there is no impediment in considering the said prayer.

¶32

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ 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 by issuing the following directions:

¶33

a) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the assertions made in the representations submitted by either party, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P8 and P10 as well while considering the application filed by the 2nd respondent. Both parties shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually.

¶34

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any

¶35

WP(C) NO. 16500 OF 2021

¶36

¶37

event, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ

¶39

petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

sru

¶44

WP(C) NO. 16500 OF 2021

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16500/2021

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAW APPROVED BY THE EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITY DATED 08.08.2012
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/6627/10DATED 11.09.2012
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/6987/19/K.DIS DATED 30.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3A	A TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2020 VIDE ORDER NO.EM4/9002/2020/DGE/K.DIS
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P5A	A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2009 IN WPC 27853 OF 2020
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE DATED 17.01.2021 OF THE C.H.MUHAMMED KOYA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY, DATED 06.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEO
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.04.201 IN WPC NO.11750 OF 2020
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶49

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

A.P.Kunhammad v. the District Educational Officer Thalassery

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Kunhammad v. the District Educational Officer Thalassery

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

Tinu v Mathew, Vs the State of Kerala

Banazir.R Vs State of Kerala

Nisha B. Anandan Vs the State of Kerala

T.D.Vincy Vs State of Kerala

A.K.Chandran Vs K.P.Aswini Kumar

Jayalakshmi v., Vs the State of Kerala