Dismissed

Balakrishnan Kidavu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jan 2022WP(C)/2/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition dismissed where the court held the petitioner's apprehension in a connected matter was misconceived, as the earlier judgment already mandated an opportunity of hearing to all affected parties before passing orders on the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was denied a direction to consider the representation and was instead informed that his opportunity of hearing would be provided in the connected appeal proceedings.

Balakrishnan Kidavu Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BALAKRISHNAN KIDAVU AGED 62 YEARS S/O. RARUKUTTY NAIR, KOODATHINKAL HOUSE, KUTTIYATTU PARAMBATHU, ERAMANGALAM P. O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 612.

¶8

BY ADVS. V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR P.R.REENA MAYA M. P.S.SIDHARTHAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

¶11

2 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 014.

¶12

3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY P. O, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 574. 4 C.P. VENUGOPALAN NAIR S/O. RAMANKUTTY KIDAVU, CHERIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, EKAROOL P. O, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 574.

¶13

5 NANMINDA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, P.O NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 613. SRI. JIMMY GEORGE - GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) NO.2 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

According to the petitioner, the petitioner was elected as the Manager of the 5^th respondent School for the period commencing from 24.01.2018 to 23.01.2021 by a committee in accordance with Ext.P1 bye-law of the 5^th respondent School and the same has been approved by the 3^rd respondent District Educational Officer in exercise of the powers under Rule 4 (3) of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules. Ext.P3 order was challenged by the 4^th respondent before this Court in W.P.(C) No.8241 of 2021 and this Court by judgment dated 20.12.2021 disposed of the writ petition relegating the petitioner therein to avail statutory remedy before the Director General of Education, the 2^nd respondent. The relevant portion of

¶19

W.P.(C) NO.2 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

the judgment in W.P.(C) No.8241 of 2021 reads as

¶22

follows:-

¶23

“Resultantly, while declining interference with Ext.P5 order, there will be a direction to the petitioners to approach the DGE and prefer an appeal under Rule 4(3) of Chapter III of the KER. If the appeal is preferred within a period of two weeks from today, the DGE shall entertain the same and take a decision on its merits within a period of two months from the date of filing of the appeal. Before passing orders, all the affected parties including the petitioners and the party respondents shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard. To enable the petitioners to approach the DGE and avail the statutory remedy, the interim order granted by this Court on 29.3.2021 shall remain in force for a period of two weeks from today. Till such date, the 1st petitioner shall not make any appointments nor take any policy decision in respect of the school.” (emphasis supplied)

¶24

The petitioner herein is the 5^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.8241 of 2021 and the petitioners therein

¶25

are respondents 4 and 5. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent may file an appeal and obtain an interim order behind the back of the

¶26

W.P.(C) NO.2 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

petitioner from the 2^nd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 2^nd respondent stating that in case any appeal is preferred by the 4^th respondent, before passing any interim orders therein the petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of being heard. This writ petition is

¶29

filed for a direction to consider Ext.P4 and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before any orders are passed in the appeal filed by the 4^th respondent against Ext.P3 order.

¶30

Going by the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No.8241 of 2021, the relevant portion thereof is extracted above, I find that, the apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived. This Court in the aforesaid judgment has specifically stated that before passing orders, all affected parties including the petitioners and the party respondents shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner was a party respondent

¶31

W.P.(C) NO.2 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

in W.P.(C) No.8241 of 2021. Necessarily before

¶34

passing any orders on appeal preferred against Ext.P3 the petitioner will be heard.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

SPR

¶40

W.P.(C) NO.2 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF BYELAW OF THE NANMINDA HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY DATED 10.05.2015. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. A5/549/2018/K.DIS DATED 20.06.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A5/764/21 KDS DATED 20.03.2021. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2021.

¶45

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

Balakrishnan Kidavu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishnan Kidavu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Nambiampurath Vs the Secretary

Jawahar Mohammed Vs the Secretary

S.Venu Vs State of Kerala

Zerone Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B

Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Guru Education Trust Vs State of Kerala