Kerala High Court
K.V.Syed Mohammed vs Ponneri Abdurahiman
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, D.Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.SESHADRI NAIDU
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2014/13TH ASHADHA, 1936
WA.No. 741 of 2013 () IN WP(C).22910/2012
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22910/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 21/1/13
APPELLANT(S)/4TH RESPONDENT:
------------------------------------------------------
K.V.SYED MOHAMMED
KALLIVALAPPIL, THRITHALA 679 534, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SRI.M.R.SABU
SMT.APARNA RAJAN
SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. PONNERI ABDURAHIMAN
MANAGER, DR.K.B.MENON HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 534.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
OTTAPALAM 679 101, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
ADDL.5. COL.(RETD) M.SUKUMARAN,
AGED 68 YEARS, S/O P.KESAVAN NAIR,
MANAGER, DR.K.B.MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT CHANDRIKA SADAN,
MEZHATHUR, THRITHALA,
PALAKKAD DT.
(ADDL.5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/8/13 IN IA NO.651/13).
R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.)
R5 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
R1 BY ADV. SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN
R5 BY ADV. SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR
BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2014, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & D.SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
=============================
Writ Appeal No. 741 of 2013
====================
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, J.
Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the additional 5th respondent.
2. The writ appeal arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C) No.22910/12, which was filed by the 1st respondent herein, challenging Ext.P5 appellate order passed by the Director of Public Instruction setting aside Ext.R4(c) order passed by the District Educational Officer approving the appointment of the 1st respondent as the Manager of the Trithala Higher Secondary School, Trithala, Palakkad. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge set aside Exts.P5 and P6. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us. It is now informed by all the parties that during the pendency of the writ appeal, a new Manager has been appointed and that by Annexure R5(a) order, the appointment of the new Manager has been approved by the District Educational Officer. W.A No.741/13
: 2 :
Challenging the approval thus granted to the appointment, the appellant as well as the 1st respondent have filed revisions before the Government and these revisions are pending.
In the light of the above, with the consent of the parties, this writ appeal is disposed of directing that the 2nd respondent will consider and pass orders on the revisions filed by the appellant and the 1st respondent challenging Annexure R5(a) order of the DEO approving the fresh appointment of the Manager of the school concerned. It is ordered that such orders shall be passed with notice to all the parties concerned and untramelled by the observations contained in the judgment of the learned single Judge.
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE D.SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE Rp As per order dated 17.7.2014 in I.A.No.653/14 in W.A.No.741/2014, the following corrections are made in the judgment:
W.A No.741/13
: 3 :
The last sentence in the second paragraph of the judgment is corrected and read as:
"Challenging the approval thus granted to the appointment, the appellant as well as the 1st respondent have filed appeals before the 3rd respondent and these appeals are pending".
The first sentence in the last paragraph of the judgment is corrected and read as:
"In the light of the above, with the consent of the parties, this writ appeal is disposed of directing that the 3rd respondent will consider and pass orders on the appeals filed by the appellant and the 1st respondent challenging Annexure R5(a) order of the D.E.O. approving the fresh appointment of the Manager of the school concerned".
Sd/-
Registrar (Judicial)