Shree Vidyadhiraja Vidya Samajam vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 725 of 2009()


1. SHREE VIDYADHIRAJA VIDYA SAMAJAM,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHREE VIDYADHIRAJA HOMOEOPATHIC

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,(HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE

3. THE CONTROLLING OFFICER OF HOMOEOPATHIC

4. DR.G.SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :25/03/2009

 O R D E R
                 K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
                 M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                       W.A.No. 725 of 2009
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
             Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The appellants are the writ petitioners. The Writ pPetition

was filed challenging Ext.P7 certificate issued by the third

respondent, certifying that the 4th respondent is in charge of

Shree Vidyadhiraja Homoeopathic Medical College, Nemom,

Thiruvananthapuram and he is continuing as Principal-in-

charge till date. It is a certificate dated 3.2.2009. According to

the appellants, the 4th respondent was placed under suspension by

the competent authority by Ext.P5 order dated 17.1.2009. In

view of the said suspension order, Ext.P7 certificate issued

cannot have any legal validity, it is submitted.

2. We notice that the 4th respondent has filed a Writ

Petition challenging Ext.P5. Having regard to the sustainability

of the challenge against Ext.P5, the learned Judge could have

W.A.No. 725 of 2009
2

passed appropriate orders, including interim order to re-instate the

said respondent in that writ petition. But such an order could not have

been passed in the Writ Petition, in which the Management challenged

Ext.P7. Going by Ext.P5, the same does not have any efficacy to

obliterate Ext.P5 order. So, the impugned interim order is set aside.

3. This Writ Appeal is allowed as above. It is made clear that

this is done without prejudice to the contentions of both sides

regarding Ext.P5.

(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
Judge

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge

tm