High Court Kerala High Court

G.B. Sasikumar vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
G.B. Sasikumar vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5239 of 2009(Y)


1. G.B. SASIKUMAR, HEADMASTER,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHINU V. RAJ, HSA,
3. RAJEESH.R, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER,
4. GANGA.M.K, U.P.S.A,
5. A.S. VIJAYALAKSHMI, HSA,
6. P. SYAMALAKUMARY, HSA,
7. INDIRA DEVI.P, HSA,
8. K.R. GEETHA, HSA,
9. RENJAN MATHEWS.P, UPSA,
10. RADHAMONY AMMA.B,  UPSA,
11. D. VASANTHI AMMA, HSA,
12. ANOOP.R.G, UPSA,
13. AHEESH V. ANAND, PEON,
14. SAM DANIEL, HSA,
15. D. RETHEESH BABU, UPSA,
16. VIMALARAJ.R, UPSA,
17. SARILL CHANDRAN.C, FTM,
18. BIJI.K.S, HSA,
19. OMANA AMMA.D, SEWING TEACHER,
20. V. SATHYASEELAN PILLAI, PEON,
21. HARI KUMAR, UPSA,
22. P. GIRIJAKUMAR, FTM,
23. RASANATHU, UPSA,
24. V. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, UPSA,
25. RAJI AMMA.B, UPSA,
26. RENJITHA G. KRISHNAN, UPSA,
27. D.I. SREEKUMAR, UPSA,
28. B. SUBHADRAMMA, HSA,
29. REGHUNADHAN PILLAI.G, HSA,
30. C. MAYA, CLERK,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESEWNTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KOLLAM.

5. SURESH KUMAR, MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :26/03/2009

 O R D E R
                              P.N.Ravindran, J.
                           ==================
                          W.P.(C) No.5239 of 2009
                         =====================

                 Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009.

                                 JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. P.B.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, Sri. T.T.Muhamood, the learned Government Pleader

appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri. John Joseph Vettikad, the

learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent Manager.

2. The first petitioner is the Headmaster of the fifth respondent’s

school. The other petitioners are the teaching and non-teaching staff of

the said school. They have filed this Writ Petition alleging improper

conduct of the part of the fifth respondent. Setting out various

complaints about the fifth respondent, they have submitted Ext.P9

representation before the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam and

Ext.P10 complaint before the Secretary to Government, General

Education Department. In this Writ Petition, they inter alia pray for a

direction to the Deputy Director of Education to enquire into Ext.P9 and

for a direction to the Government to enquire into Ext.P10 complaint

within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

3. Sri. John Joseph Vettikad, the learned counsel appearing for the

fifth respondent Manager submits that there is no truth or merit in the

charges levelled against the Manager in Exts.P9 and P10. The learned

counsel further submits that many among the petitioners in this Writ

WP(C) No.5239/09 -: 2 :-

Petition have informed the Manager that they have not given instructions

for filing such a Writ Petition and that their signatures have also been

forged. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent also submits that

the same is the situation as regards Exts.P9 and P10 also. The learned

counsel further submits that in these circumstances, the Writ Petition

deserves to be dismissed.

4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official

respondents submits that the Government have on receipt of Ext.P10

decided to conduct an enquiry on 27.3.2009 and that the Deputy

Director of Education will enquire into the complaint voiced by the

petitioners and also the contentions put forward by the Manager before

this Court. In the light of the fact that the Deputy Director of Education

is taking steps to enquire into the complaint submitted by the

petitioners, I dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Deputy

Director of Education to hear the Manager also and afford him

reasonable opportunity of being heard in the course of the enquiry. The

Deputy Director of Education shall after such enquiry submit report to

the Government. The enquiry shall be held and the report submitted

within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment. The Government shall thereafter pass appropriate orders on

Ext.P10 complaint. If the Government comes to the conclusion that the

signatures of any one of the signatories to the complaints have been

forged, the Government shall take appropriate action against those

WP(C) No.5239/09 -: 3 :-

responsible for the same under Rule 12A of the Kerala Education Rules. I

make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the

rival contentions and that it will be open to the Deputy Director of

Education and the Government to come to their own conclusions in the

light of the materials collected in the enquiry.

P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.

ess 6/4