Kerala High Court
The Manager vs V.H.Saritha on 31 May, 2016
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAYOF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938
W.A.No. 803 of 2016 IN WP(C).13992/2014
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 & 8:
1. THE MANAGER, SNV SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513.
2. P.S.BHASWARA, UPSA, SNV SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
SRI.S.SUJIN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2, & 4 TO 7:
1. V.H.SARITHA, WIFE OF SYAM, AGED 30 YEARS,
UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
SNV SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 101.
4. THE HEAD MASTER, SNV SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513.
5. SMT.V.R.RENJU, UPSA, SNV SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513.
6. SMT.K.S.SONA, UPSA, SNV SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513.
7. SMT.C.P.BHAGYARAJ, UPSA, SNV SANSKRIT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513.
R BY SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
R BY SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
R BY SMT.P.A.JENZIA
R BY SRI.C.K.SAJEEV
R BY SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-05-2016, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Writ Appeal No.803 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
Respondents 3 and 8 in W.P.(C)No.13992/14 are the appellants. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent essentially seeking an order for implementation of Ext.P12. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge ordered the DEO to issue appropriate directions as per Ext.P12 and also to take consequential action. It is this judgment, which is under challenge.
2. We heard the senior counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
3. It is the admitted fact that Ext.P12, has become final and in such an event, the said order was liable to be implemented. However, the implementation of Ext.P12 is sought to be resisted by the counsel for the appellant contending that a representation filed by the second appellant objecting to Ext.P12 is pending with the Writ Appeal No.803 of 2016 : 2 : Government. The said representation is not shown to be a statutory one and therefore, the pendency of Ext.P12 cannot come in the way of its implementation. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to differ from the conclusions of the learned Single Judge.
Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE 03.06.2016 This appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 31.5.2016. However, on a mention being made on behalf of the counsel for the appellants, the case was posted today for spoken to.
Today, we heard the counsel again and considered the submissions made. From the submissions made by the learned Writ Appeal No.803 of 2016 : 3 :
senior counsel, it is clear that there was failure on the part of the appellants in pursuing their remedies against Ext.P12 Government Order and that therefore Ext.P12 has attained finality. In such a situation, said order is bound to be implemented. This precisely is what was ordered by the learned single Judge. Therefore, we see no reason to entertain the request of the learned counsel for reconsideration of the matter.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jes