Review petition seeking review of a writ judgment that directed the Academy to decide per Government directions. The petitioner feared prejudice since her service was terminated citing those directions. The court clarified its earlier direction would not preclude her from contesting adverse orders in pending proceedings.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
MONDAY,THE12THDAYOFFEBRUARY2024/23RDMAGHA,1945
RPNO.46OF2024
AGAINSTTHEJUDGMENTWP(C)4328/2023OFHIGHCOURTOFKERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER:
SUJALAS.KUMARI
AGED49YEARS
D/ODAMODARAN,LOWERDIVISIONCLERK,KERALASANGEETHA
NATAKAAKADEMI,CHEMBUKAVU,THRISSUR-680020.
RESIDINGATSUSHAMANIVAS,KOTTAMURIP.O.,
THRIKKODITHANAM,CHANGANACHERRYKOTTAYAM,PIN-686105.
BYADVS.
T.T.MUHAMOOD
A.RENJIT
NAZEERHUZAIN.H
GOKULR.NAIR
NIKHILA.P
RIYAMERINBENCYKUTTY
RESPONDENTS:
1STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYTHEPRINCIPALSECRETARY,CULTURALAFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695001.
2KERALASANGEETHANATAKAACADEMY
REPRESENTEDBYITSSECRETARY,CHEMBUKAVU,
THRISSUR,PIN-680020.
3EXECUTIVECOMMITTEE
REPRESENTEDBYITSCONVENER,THEKERALASANGEETHANATAKA
AKADEMI,CHEMBUKAVU,THRISSUR,PIN-680020.
4SHAJIJOSEPH
JUNIORSUPERINTENDENT,THEKERALASANGEETHANATAKAAKADEMI,
CHEMBUKAVU,THRISSUR,PIN-680020.
5V.K.ANILKUMAR
PROGRAMMEOFFICER,THEKERALASANGEETHANATAKAAKADEMI,
CHEMBUKAVU,THRISSUR,PIN-680020.
6SUBHA
ADMINISTRATIVEOFFICER,THEKERALASANGEETHANATAKA
AKADEMI,CHEMBUKAVU,THRISSUR,PIN-680020.
BYADVS.
S.P.ARAVINDAKSHANPILLAY
RPNO.46OF2024
2
N.SANTHA(S-176)
V.VARGHESE(K/514/1996)
PETERJOSECHRISTO(K/1216/2004)
S.A.ANAND(K/1216/2006)
K.N.REMYA(K/712/2010)
L.ANNAPOORNA(K/952/2013)
VISHNUV.K.(K/001396/2018)
THISREVIEWPETITIONHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON12.02.2024,
THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:
RPNO.46OF2024
3
ORDER
This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 30.10.2023 in W.P.(C) No.4328 of 2023.
RPNO.46OF2024
4
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent
wherein it is stated that the 2nd respondent in the writ petition has independently applied his mind and taken a decision to terminate the petitioner as per Annexure-A1 order. It is further stated that the petitioner has already preferred W.P.(C) No.38343 of 2023, challenging show cause notice dated 10.11.2023. However, in the said writ petition, Annexure A2 letter issued by the Government was not challenged. It is further stated that the petitioner has later preferred W.P.(C) No.41224 of 2023, challenging Annexures A1 and A2. However, no interim order has been granted. It is further stated that as the order has been implemented, the review petition cannot be maintained in view of the law laid down in State of Nagaland and Another v. Toulvi Kibami and Another [2003 KHC 1633].
5. I have considered the submissions advanced.
Court had directed the 2nd respondent to take a decision in terms of Annexure-A2. A reading of Annexure-A2 would disclose that the 2nd respondent was ordered by the Government to take a decision independently by taking note of the Rules governing the Employees of the Kerala Nataka Academy. Annexure-A1 would disclose that the entire aspect of the matter was considered in terms of Annexure A2 and a decision was taken on 30.11.2023. As a matter of fact, while disposing of W.P.(C)
RPNO.46OF2024
5
No.4328 of 2023, this Court had only directed the 2nd respondent to independently consider the matter in the light of the directions issued by the Government. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel, Annexure A2 was not placed before this Court at the time of disposal of the writ petition. However, I find that Annexure A1 has been rendered without reckoning that part of Annexure A2 wherein it has been ordered that the probation could be terminated. Be that as it may, as the petitioner has already approached this Court challenging Annexures-A1 and A2, the directions issued by this Court in the judgment directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation shall not preclude the petitioner from raising all valid and legal contentions in the proceedings challenging the adverse orders passed against her.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE
Sru
RPNO.46OF2024
6
APPENDIX OF RP 46/2024
PETITIONER’SANNEXURES
AnnexureA1TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERNO.1442/2023/KSNADATED
30-11-2023ISSUEDBYTHE2NDRESPONDENT.
AnnexureA2TRUECOPYOFTHEGOVERNMENTLETTERNO.
A1/48/2023/CADDATED05-10-2023.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment in W.P.(C) 4328/2023 directing consideration per Government directions prejudices the petitioner's case after termination orders were passed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Nagaland and Another v. Toulvi Kibami and AnotherReferred
[2003 KHC 1633]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sujala S. Kumari
State of Kerala
Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy
Executive Committee
Shaji Joseph
V.K. Anilkumar
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court