National Thermal Power … vs Asha P. on 7 December, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2918 of 2007()


1. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASHA P., W/O. N.SANTOSH KUMAR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN,

3. JOINT COMMISSIONER (ACAD)

4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

5. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA (NTPC),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :07/12/2007

 O R D E R
                        H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.
                       --------------------------------------------------------
                                      W.A.No.2918 of 2007
                        -------------------------------------------------------
                       Dated, this the 7th day of December, 2007

                                        JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

Questioning the correctness or otherwise of the interim order

dated 4th December, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge while admitting

W.P.(C) No.35617 of 2007 , the fifth respondent in the Writ Petition is before us

in this appeal.

(2) The petitioner, a State Government employee and mother of a

child studying in IVth standard in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Malappuram has sought

admission to her child in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kayamkulam, which is a project

school under the fifth respondent, consequent upon her transfer to Alappuzha.

Her request is rejected by the fifth respondent. That is how she is before this

court in the Writ Petition.

(3) The learned Single Judge, keeping in view clause 12 of the

Guidelines, has passed the interim order directing the fifth respondent to admit

the petitioner’s child in the fourth respondent-school, subject to the result of the

Writ Petition.

(4) Aggrieved by the interim order so passed, the fifth respondent

in the Writ Petition is before us in this Writ Appeal.

(5) We need not labour much for disposing of the Appeal. It is

suffice to observe that the learned Single Judge, keeping in view the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case, has exercised his extraordinary and

W.A.No.2918/2007 -2-

discretionary jurisdiction. The discretion so exercised, in our view, is neither

arbitrary nor without jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not find any error in the

interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we reject the

Writ Appeal. We make it clear that the interim order passed by the learned

Single Judge need not be treated as precedent in any other case.

Ordered accordingly.

(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE
MS