Dismissed

Manager, Vennacode A.U.P. School, v. the District Educational Officer

Kerala HC3 Nov 2021WP(C)/23978/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the District Educational Officer to decide pending appeal petitions regarding teacher appointments within three months, providing an opportunity for the petitioner and third respondent to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to dispose of Exts.P11 to P15 within three months after hearing.

Manager, Vennacode A.U.P. School, Vs the District… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23978 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

1 MANAGER, VENNACODE A.U.P. SCHOOL, KAVANUR, PIN - 673639, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

¶11

WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679328.

¶12

2 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE AEO, AREECODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 673639.

¶13

3 PRAJIDAKUMARI K.

¶14

LD CLERK, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, AREECODE, PIN - 673639, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

4 SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, AREECODE, PIN - 673639, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN, GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC NO.23978 OF 2021

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 03^rd day of November, 2021

¶22

The petitioner is the approved manager of U.P

¶23

School. Five posts were sanctioned in the school and the petitioner issued appointment order appointing five teachers. The approval was forwarded to the second respondent, who rejected it on the grounds mentioned therein. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the D.E.O. Finding that the above appeal was not likely to be taken up, separate revisions have been filed, which are now pending as Exts.P11 to P15 before the first respondent. The petitioner laments that in spite of considerable delay, the above revisions have not been taken up and disposed of.

¶24

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition itself, by directing the

¶25

WPC NO.23978 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

first respondent to take up, consider and dispose of Exts.P11 to P15 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the third respondent, either physically or virtually.

¶28

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/03-11

WPC NO.23978 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23978/2021

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF ISSUED BY THE 15.07.2021.	THE APPOINTMENT ORDER PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF ISSUED BY THE 16.07.2021.	THE APPOINTMENT ORDER PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE 16.07.2021.	OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE 29.07.2021.	OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE 11.08.2021.	OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE 15.09.2021.	OF THE REJECTION ORDER 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE 17.09.2021.	OF THE REJECTION ORDER 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE 15.09.2021.	OF THE REJECTION ORDER 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE 17.09.2021	OF THE REJECTION ORDER 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT P10	THE TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE 17.09.2021.	OF THE REJECTION ORDER 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT P11	THE TRUE COPY	OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE

¶38

WPC NO.23978 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

THE	1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 THE THE	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 THE THE	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 THE THE	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 THE THE	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶42

TRUE COPY

¶43

P.A.TO JUDGE

Manager, Vennacode A.U.P. School, v. the District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager, Vennacode A.U.P. School, v. the District Educational Officer

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

C.N. Chinnammal Vs Vaikom Municipality

V.Suresh Vs Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation

Shareekhath M. Vs State of Kerala

Divya Divaharan Vs State of Kerala

T.Koumudhiyamma, Vs the Cochin Devaswom Board

K.K.Muhammed Safwan Vs the State of Kerala