IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21109 of 2009(G)
1. THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :30/07/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.21109 of 2009-G
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by Ext.P14 order
passed by the Deputy Director of Education. As per the said order, the
petitioner is disqualified from the post of Manager in exercise of powers
conferred under Rule 7(2) of Chapter IIII read with Rule 8(8) of Chapter
XIV-A K.E.R. The petitioner had earlier approached this court aggrieved
by an earlier order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, viz. Ext.P7
herein. The said writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P8 judgment
directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. It was held by this
court that normally a writ petition would not be entertainable under Article
226 of the Constitution of India if the petitioner has not exhausted the
statutory remedy. In the light of the said judgment wherein the petitioner
itself is the writ petitioner, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ
petition which challenges Ext.P14 order passed by the very same officer. It
cannot be said that the remedy of revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A
K.E.R. is not efficacious, even though learned counsel for the petitioner
maintained that for violation of the various provisions of Rule 7 of Chapter
wpc 21109/2009 2
III K.E.R. this court can entertain the writ petition and adjudicate the matter.
The said aspect also can be considered by the revisional authority.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving open the remedy of
the petitioner to challenge Ext.P14 in accordance with law.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/