Radhakrishnan Koroth vs State Of Kerala on 13 November, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32042 of 2008(M)


1. RADHAKRISHNAN KOROTH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

5. THE MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :13/11/2008

 O R D E R
                           ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                          ==============
                     W.P.(C) NO. 32042 OF 2008 (M)
                     ====================

              Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008

                              J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is an HSA(Hindi) in the school under the 5th respondent.

By Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the

issue relating to his approval, with notice to the petitioner and after

affording him sufficient opportunity to be heard. Petitioner submits that

after Ext.P1 judgment was rendered, he did not hear anything from the 3rd

respondent. Thereupon he made enquiry and that he was given Exts.P2

and P3, a letter and an order passed by the 3rd respondent in pursuance to

Ext.P1 judgment, by which the approval has been rejected.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that this order was passed

without notice to him. A reading of Exts. P2 and P3 also shows that even

according to the Deputy Director, the only address available was his school

address and notice to him was routed through the Headmaster. It is the

petitioner’s specific case that such a course of action was adopted by the

Deputy Director despite having residential address of the petitioner and

that notice was not received in that address.

3. Irrespective of the controversy, fact remains that the

petitioner did not have an opportunity to address his arguments before the

WPC 32042/08
:2 :

Deputy Director before he passed Ext.P3. I am not prepared to think that

if the petitioner had notice, he would have kept away from the Deputy

Director at the time when he heard the parties especially for the reason

that his very job was at stake. Since Ext.P3 has been passed without

hearing the petitioner, I am inclined to direct that the Deputy Director

should hear the petitioner and if necessary, revise Ext.P3.

4. It is directed that on production of a copy of this judgment,

Deputy Director will issue notice to the petitioner in the postal address,

which will be furnished by the petitioner. Deputy Director will also issue

notice to the Manager, hear both of them, and if necessary revise Ext.P3,

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months.. It is directed

that until such fresh orders are passed, Ext.P3 will be kept in abeyance.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp