IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 2359 of 2007(U)
1. GLADSTON GEORGE VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. SRI.MANOJ MATHEW,
For Petitioner :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
For Respondent :SRI.N.SUGATHAN
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :05/10/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.
----------------------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 2359 OF 2007
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th October, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, C.J.
The orders passed by the Assistant Educational Officer (Ext.P6) was the
subject matter of W.P.(C) No.26318 of 2004. The learned single Judge has
rejected the Writ Petition solely on the ground that if, for any reason, the petitioner
is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, he has
got a right of appeal and right of revision against those orders before the
appropriate forum.
2. Admittedly, what was questioned by the petitioner in the Writ Petition is
an order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. If, for any reason, the
petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he can always file an appeal and if he
fails in that appeal, he can question the said order by way of revision before the
State Government. Keeping this aspect of the matter, the learned single Judge, in
our opinion, has rightly rejected the Writ Petition. We do not see any error in the
orders passed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires
to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
Chief Justice
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/
