Kerala High Court
A.P. Kunhammad vs Mini Joseph on 3 August, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943
RP NO. 506 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11750/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONER/7th RESPONDENT IN WPC.NO.11750/2020:
A.P. KUNHAMMAD
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, GENERAL SECRETARY, C.H MUHAMMED KOYA
MEMORIAL EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. KAVUMPADY,
THILANKERI P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT CHIKKIAT
HOUSE, KAVUMPADI, THILLANKERI P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT 670 702.
BY ADVS.
M.SASINDRAN
JOMY K. JOSE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 AND 8 IN
WPC.NO.11750/2020:
1 MINI JOSEPH
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. ADV. WILBER BASTIAN, HEADMISTRESS IN CHARGE, C.H
MUHAMMED KOYA MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
KAVUMPADI IN KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT
KEZHAKKETHAYYIL HOUSE, ULIKKAL P.O DISTRICT PIN 670 705
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001
3 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001
4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
KANNUR, PIN 670 001
5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 670 001
RP NO. 506 OF 2021
2
6 SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001
7 P.P MUHAMOOD
AGED 62, S/O. KOYA, LAILA MANZIL, KUNHIPALLY, KOTTAL
P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 005
8 T. MAJEED,
AGED 58 YEARS, BAITH UL FALAH, THILLANKERI P.O, IRITTY
TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 702
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SUNIL KURIAKOSE
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 506 OF 2021
3
ORDER
This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 09.04.2021 in W.P.(C)No.11750/2020, has been filed with the allegation that the directions therein are contrary to the ones issued by this Court in another writ petition filed by the review petitioner, namely W.P.(C)No.27853/2020.
2. Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, submitted that, as is evident from Annexure AI -- which is the judgment in W.P.(C)No.27853/2020 -- this Court had directed the competent Secretary of the Government of Kerala to take up the statutory Revision filed by his client, staking Managership to the School in question but that, in the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court has directed the District Educational Officer (DEO) to consider the request for the same purpose made by the writ petitioner. Sri.M.Sasindran, therefore, prayed that the directions in the judgment sought to be reviewed be ordered to be kept in abeyance until such time as Annexure AI judgment is complied with by the Government.
3. Sri.R.Surendran, learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the directions in the judgment sought to RP NO. 506 OF 2021 4 be reviewed and in Annexure AI are completely different because, in the latter, the claim of the review petitioner was for being the Managership of the School between 10.07.2019 and 21.10.2020. He pointed out that as far as the present case is concerned, the claim of Managership is between 22.10.2020 and 2023.
4. Sri.M.Sasindran, however, responded to this by saying that the submissions of Sri.R.Surendran are not accurate because, what is under challenge in the Revision Petition mentioned in Annexure AI judgment is the validity of the election itself and therefore, that if that is allowed then, consequently, the present claim of the writ petitioner cannot also be countenanced.
5. Though I hear the learned counsel for the parties make such dialectical contentions, the fact remains that I had only directed the DEO to take up the applications of the writ petitioner and to dispose of them, after hearing all parties who are interested in the issue. As far as Annexure AI is concerned, said judgment was delivered noticing that a statutory Revision had been filed by the review petitioner before the Government.
6. The only contention of the review petitioner is that if the exercise pursuant to the directions in Annexure AI judgment goes RP NO. 506 OF 2021 5 in his favour, then any decision that may be taken by the DEO, consequent to the judgment sought to be reviewed, will become otiose.
7. Even should I find favour with the submissions of the petitioner as afore, the fact remains that if the Government takes a view in favour of the review petitioner, through the exercise as ordered in Annexure AI, obviously, he will be at liberty to bring it to the notice of the DEO, who will, thereafter, be obligated to consider the same also and decide whether any modification to his order, as directed by this Court, would become warranted.
8. I do not, therefore, think that it is necessary to review the judgment, except to clarify that in the event the review petitioner is able to obtain any orders in his favour pursuant to the directions in Annexure AI judgment, he will be at liberty to bring it to the notice of the DEO; which Authority will, thereafter, hear the parties and advert to the orders of the Government and take a decision as to whether any modification would be required to the orders which he has been directed to pass in terms of the directions in the judgment sought to be reviewed.
9. Before parting, I must also deal with one of the RP NO. 506 OF 2021 6 apprehensions of Sri.M.Sasindran that during efflux of time before his client's revision petition is decided through the process ordered in Annexure AI judgment, writ petitioner is likely to fill up all the posts. I am afraid that this is not an issue that is directly in front of this Court because, all that I have considered is the claim of the Headmistress of the School - Smt.Mini Joseph, to be granted approval. That certainly can be done as per the judgment sought to be reviewed and any other appointment which the writ petitioner makes, asserting his rights as the Manager of the School, even if the DEO finds in his favour, will certainly be available to the review petitioner to impugn and challenge as per law appropriately, depending upon the orders that he may obtain pursuant to the directions in Annexure A1 judgment.
This review petition is thus closed, with the afore clarifications.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp RP NO. 506 OF 2021 7 APPENDIX OF RP 506/2021 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE ANNEXURE AI TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2020 IN WP(C) NO.27853/2020.
ANNEXURE AII TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.GEDN-F2/177/2020- G.EDN. DATED 22.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE AIII TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 12.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE AIV TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B4/1553/21 DATED 20.07.2021 ISSUED TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE AV TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER ON 26.07.2021 BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.