Disposed

The Manager v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2023WP(C)/1847/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a school manager seeking sanction for higher grades and consideration of an upgrade application. The Kolkata Bench ordered the writ petition closed with liberty to file a fresh petition, dismissing pending interlocutory applications.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is ordered to be closed with liberty to move a fresh petition; pending interlocutory applications dismissed.

The Manager Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1847 OF 2016

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

THE MANAGER

¶8

HARIJAN L.P.SCHOOL, KILIKOLLOOR, KALLUMTHAZHAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶13

3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 009.

¶14

SRI.JUSTIN JACOB, SR.GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 1847 OF 2016

¶17

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Petitioner approached this Court with the following prayers:

¶20

“i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to sanction upto Vth Standard in the Petitioner's School from the academic year 2016-2017 onwards.

¶21

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Exhibit P-1 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner within a time limit and also duly taking note of Exhibit P-2 Judgment.”

¶22

It is submitted that over a period of time, much water has flown and that this writ petition may be closed with liberty to move fresh petition.

¶23

Writ petition is ordered to be closed with liberty aforementioned. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, in the writ petition would stand dismissed.

¶24

¶25

WP(C) NO. 1847 OF 2016

¶26

¶27

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1847/2016

¶28

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶29

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR UPGRADATION OF PETITIONER'S SCHOOL

¶30

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.25623/2011 DATED 22.5.2014

The Manager v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Shanthi Vs State of Kerala

Zubair.M Vs State of Kerala

P.Muralidharan, Vs State of Kerala

Liju P.Reji Vs Mezhuveli Grama Panchayath

Naushad Vs the District Collector

Kerala State Human Rights Commission Vs State of Kerala