Disposed

Mukundan K.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2023WP(C)/22979/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged illegal appointments in a school by the Assistant Educational Officer. The High Court directed the Director of General Education to afford a hearing opportunity to the petitioner, the Officer, and other affected parties before passing orders on the matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Director of General Education to record representations of petitioner and appointee and pass orders within three months.

Mukundan K.K Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 22979 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 14TH POUSHA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 22979 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

MUKUNDAN K.K AGED 82 YEARS SON OF SANKARAN MASTER, RESIDING AT AYILYAM, AREEKAD, P.O. NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 027.

¶10

BY ADVS. V.A.MUHAMMED M.SAJJAD

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶14

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶15

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 101.

¶16

5 C.M. REKHA, SOUPARNIKA, NARIKUNIYIL, PERUVATUR, KOYILANDY-673 520, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶17

BY ADV R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶18

SMT ANIMA M, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 22979 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

(i) Declare that the appointments in Puthuppanam North S B School effected by the 5th respondent are illegal and unsustainable for want of approved Constitution/Bye-law.

¶25

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent not to grant approval to the appointments made by the 5th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶26

Sri. Sajjad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a certain Smt. Divya T.T. has secured Ext.P4 order linked with the appointment carried out by the 5th respondent in the school and by the said order, the Government has relegated the matter to the DGE for hearing and disposal. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has serious objection and any decision to be taken by the Director would have adverse consequences as the appointment of the aforesaid Divya T.T. has been effected illegally by the 5th respondent. The petitioner states that being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 representation before the Director and requests that before orders are issued by the Director

¶27

pursuant to Ext.P4, an opportunity of being heard be afforded to the

¶28

WP(C) NO. 22979 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

petitioner as well.

¶31

Sri. R.K.Muralidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

5th respondent, submitted that without making the aforesaid Divya T.T., a party to the proceeding, the petitioner cannot seek such a prayer.

¶33

I have considered the submissions. From Ext.P4 order, it appears that the Government has directed the DGE to consider the matter concerning the grant of approval of appointment of Smt. Divya T.T. The petitioner has submitted a representation before the DGE and the same is pending. In that view of the matter, necessary directions can be issued to consider the grievances of the petitioner as well before passing orders on Ext.P5.

¶34

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:

¶35

a) There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P5

¶36

while considering Ext.P4 and pass orders after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorised representative, the 5th respondent, Smt. Divya T.T. and other affected parties, if any.

¶37

WP(C) NO. 22979 OF 2022

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

IAP

¶48

WP(C) NO. 22979 OF 2022

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22979/2022

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶52

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2007 KHC 3371 (G. SOMANATHA PILLAI V. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS DECIDED ON 20.10.2006. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G3/21712/08/DPI/K.DIS DATED 18.10.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT). NO.6260/2022/G.EDN. DATED 31/10/2022. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR DATED 05/12/2022.

¶53

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶54

NIL

Mukundan K.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukundan K.K 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

Yusaff Eranoth, Vs the State of Kerala

Santhi Krishna G.S Vs State of Kerala

Indian Red Cross Society, Vs State of Kerala

E.K.Amruthavarma Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Joseph Vs the Director General of Education

The Manager Vs B. Sreedevi