Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Manager vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37451 of 2010(F)


1. MANAGER, H.L.P.S.MALESAMANGALAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

5. SMT.LEENA.N., L.P.S.A.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :17/12/2010

 O R D E R
                              S. Siri Jagan, J.
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       W.P(C) No. 37451 of 2010
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
            Dated this, the 17th day of December, 2010.

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the manager of an aided school. He sought

approval of appointment of the 5th respondent, which was rejected on

the ground that there is a ban imposed by the Government against

new appointments. The petitioner’s appeal etc., were also rejected

on the same ground. The petitioner now submits that by Ext. P8 order

dated 12.1.2010, the Government has already lifted the ban and also

directed reconsideration of the cases already pending,

notwithstanding the fact that appeals/revisions are pending. The

petitioner therefore submits that it is only appropriate that the 4th

respondent reconsiders the matter of approval of the appointment of

the 5th respondent in the light of Ext. P8.

2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits

that the claim can be reconsidered, provided the petitioner is

prepared to furnish a bond undertaking to appoint a protected

teacher.

Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a

direction to the 4th respondent to reconsider the question of approval

of appointment of the 5th respondent in the light of Ext. P8 as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of

being heard to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.101 seconds.