Court directed the First Respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's pending revision petition within three months, after affording both parties an opportunity of being heard physically or virtually.
Direct First Respondent to consider Ext.P9 revision petition within three months, after affording opportunity of hearing to parties.
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. 9023 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 9023 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
ARUNRAJ R., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O LATE RAJAN S, NEERANJANAM, KUZHIMATHICADU P.O.THALAVOORKONAM, KUNDARA, KOLLAM, PIN-691 509.
BY ADV ALEXANDER JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 9023 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he joined service as Upper Primary School Teacher in the Sree Narayana Guru Sanskrit High School, Kadaikodu, an aided school under the management of the 5th respondent. The appointment was on a promotion vacancy and he joined the service on 1.4.2016. However, the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the 4th respondent. Though an appeal was preferred by the Manager, the same was dismissed by the 3rd respondent. The revision petition preferred before the 1st respondent was also rejected by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner states that the 5th respondent had filed Exts.P3 and P4, application and sworn statement before the 4th respondent undertaking that the next arising vacancy shall be filled up by protected teachers. The petitioner states that later the Government came out with Ext.P5 order. The petitioner is stated to have submitted Ext.P6 application before the 4th respondent by relying on Ext.P5 order requesting to approve his appointment. The grievance of the petitioner is that no orders have been passed on his application. Later, he is stated to have preferred Ext.P7 application before the 1st respondent seeking for issuance of directions to the 4th respondent. He contends that no action has been taken. While the writ petition was pending consideration,
WP(C) NO. 9023 OF 2021 3
the 4th respondent rejected Ext.P6 application filed by the petitioner by passing Ext.P8 order. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P9 revision petition under Chapter XIV A of Rule 92 of the KER.
a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 as per procedure and in strict adherence to the provisions of law,
WP(C) NO. 9023 OF 2021 4
after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorised representative and the 5th respondent.
b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
NS
WP(C) NO. 9023 OF 2021 5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9023/2021
PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS :
| EXHIBIT | P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.2016 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.6.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT | P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8.4.2019 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT | P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT | P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.2.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT | P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1.4.2021 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT | P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1.4.2021 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| Exhibit | P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B4/1499/2021 DATED 30/04/2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| Exhibit | P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 27/07/2021 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS : NIL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction is exercisable to direct the education authorities to consider a revision petition expeditiously.
Whether the petitioner/entities are entitled to a direction to decide the pending application/order within a specific time frame.
Whether an opportunity of being heard should be afforded before passing orders on the pending revision petition.
ARUNRAJ R.
STATE OF KERALA
THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
SREE NARAYANA GURU SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL KADAIKODU
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
