The Corporate Manager vs The Deputy Director (Education) on 18 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31194 of 2009(T)


1. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, THE CORPORATE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION)
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, WAYANAD

3. HEAD MASTER, ASSUMPTION HIGH SCHOO,

4. HEADMASTER ST.THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL,

5. SYRIAC SIMON, MUSIC TEACHER,

6. INDIRA T.P.MUSIC TEACHER, ST.THOMAS HIGH

                For Petitioner  :SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :18/12/2009

 O R D E R
                T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  W.P.(C). No.31194/2009-T
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009

                      J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the Corporate Manager of the

Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Mananthavady. He

is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order abolishing the post of Music

Teacher from Assumption High School, Bathery. It is

pointed out that under Rule 6 of Chapter XXIII Kerala

Education Rules, the same cannot be supported. The

petitioner is relying upon Ext.P4 Judgment of this Court,

in W.P.(C).No.23531/2008, dated 26/06/2009, in the matter.

By Ext.P5 the first respondent upheld the order passed by

the District Educational Officer.

2. Ext.P7 produced along with I.A.No.15421/2009 is a

copy of the revision petition filed by the petitioner

before the Director of Public Instruction.

3. Since the petitioner has already availed of the

statutory remedy of revision, it is upto the revisional

authority to take a decision in accordance with law and

after considering the merits of the contentions of the

petitioner.

4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the

Director of Public Instructions, namely, the additional

seventh respondent to take a decision on Exts.P7 revision

petition after hearing the petitioner within a period of

W.P.(C). No.31194/2009
-:2:-

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

Judgment.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

submitted that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not being

disbursed salary. The said issue also will be considered

by the additional seventh respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

ms