High Court Kerala High Court

Merly Johns vs State Of Kerala on 27 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
Merly Johns vs State Of Kerala on 27 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14448 of 2010(E)


1. MERLY JOHNS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SMT.T.MANICHI, PRESENTLY WORKING AS

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

5. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :27/05/2010

 O R D E R
                             C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
                      --------------------------------------------
                         W.P.(C). NO. 14448 OF 2010
                      --------------------------------------------

                     Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010


                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioners were appointed as Lower Primary School Assistants

in L.M.L.P.School, Muhamma, Cherthala under the Corporate

Management of Lutheran Schools, India Evangelical Lutheran Church,

Thiruvananthapuram on 13.9.2004 and 15.7.2004 respectively. In fact,

both of them were appointed against the vacancies occurred on account of

resignation two L.P.School Assistants. Their order of appointment were

duly forwarded to the fourth respondent for approval. In the case of the

first petitioner, it was declined to be approved on the ground that there was

no approved Corporate Management for the Lutheran Schools, as per order

dated 13.10.2004. In the case of the second petitioner, the proposal of

appointment was declined to be approved on the ground that the

acceptance of resignation of Smt.Asha was not produced, as per order

dated 20.10.2004. Against the rejection of approval of the fourth

respondent, the Manager has filed an appeal under Rule 8(5) Chapter XIV

A of the Kerala Education Rules before the third respondent. The said

W.P.(C) NO.14448/2010 2

appeal filed by the Manager was rejected by the third respondent. In the

meanwhile, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the second

respondent and the same was also rejected as per Ext.P3 order. Against

Ext.P3 order of rejection by the second respondent, the first petitioner has

filed Ext.P4 review petition. It is preferred before the first respondent as a

review petition filed under Rule 93 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala

Education Rules. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is to be

construed as a revision petition filed under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of

the Kerala Education Rules. The second petitioner, on being aggrieved by

the rejection of order of approval by the second respondent, preferred a

revision petition under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education

Rules before the first respondent.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners with the

prayer to direct the first respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P5 jointly and

pass orders thereon after affording an opportunity of being heard. When

this matter is taken up for admission, the learned Government Pleader

submitted that on Ext.P5, hearing was conducted on 14.5.2010 and, on that

date, the second respondent was heard on the matter. However, the fifth

W.P.(C) NO.14448/2010 3

respondent-manager was absent on that date and therefore, the matter has

been posted for further hearing. It is a fact that no hearing was so far been

conducted on Ext.P4. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the

prayers of the petitioners seeking a direction to the first respondent to

consider Exts.P4 and P5 together. Now that hearing was conducted on

Ext.P5 and it is posted for further hearing, I think the first respondent shall

issue notice to the first petitioner and hearing on Ext.P4 shall also be

conducted along with hearing on Ext.P5. Such cause of action will be

more convenient since the fifth respondent is also to be heard on both

these petitions . The first respondent is directed to take necessary steps in

terms of the above direction, and he shall consider Exts.P4 and P5 jointly

and pass orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

spc

W.P.(C) NO.14448/2010 4

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

W.P.(C). NO. 14448/2010

JUDGMENT

27th May, 2010

W.P.(C) NO.14448/2010 5