IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30825 of 2007(T)
1. P.J.VARKEY, PULLAT HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE MANAGER,
4. THE HEADMASTER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI.R.RAMADAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/09/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 30825 of 2007
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated: SEPTEMBER 30, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a teacher working under the 4th
respondent on appointment by the 3rd respondent Manager.
He was involved in a criminal case for an offence under
sec.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He got
arrested by the police and was remanded to judicial custody
on 13.9.2004. It would appear that subsequently he was
enlarged on bail and thereafter Ext.P3 order was passed by
the 2nd respondent reinstating him in service. The
complaint in this writ petition is mainly that the Manager is
not implementing Ext.P3.
2. The Manager has now entered appearance and
submits that against Ext.P3 he has filed a revision before
the Government. It is stated by both sides that the
revision was heard by the Government on 26.3.2008 and
orders are awaited. It is because of the pendency of the
WP(C) 30825/07
2
revision and orders that are awaited, the Manager has not
implemented Ext.P3.
3. In view of this I feel that at this stage what is
appropriate is that the revisional authority should dispose of
the revision. Since the Government is not a party to the
writ petition, this Court is disabled from passing any
positive direction binding on the Government as well. Be
that as it may, it is clarified that it will be open to the
petitioner to approach the Government, in which case I
have no reason to think that the Government will not
expedite the disposal of the revision which has already been
heard.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-