IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7980 of 2008(Y)
1. THE MANAGER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. NEENA MATHAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For Respondent :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/07/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 7980 OF 2008
............................................................................
Dated this the 9th July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Sister Aleykutty K.M., while working as HSA in St. Mary’s High School,
Ernakulam died on 20.06.1992. Aleykutty was a spinster. Her sister Neena Mathai
applied for appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme. But the
Manager did not appoint her. Complaining that she was not given employment, Neena
Mathai approached the District Educational Officer. The District Educational Officer
passed Ext. P4 order dated 27.03.2002 holding that Neena Mathai is not entitled to get
appointment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme . Neena Mathai filed a
revision before the Government . Government passed Ext. P7 order dated 17.08.2007
holding that Neena Mathai is entitled to get appointment and the Manager was directed
to issue orders posting Neena Mathai with effect from the date of receipt of the
certificates , viz. relation ship certificate/heirship certificate. Ext. P7 order is under
challenge in this Writ Petition filed by the Manager.
2. Ext.P7 order is challenged mainly on the ground that the Manager was not
afforded with an opportunity of being heard by the first respondent while disposing of
the matter as per Ext. P7 order. It is pointed out that Ext.P7 order itself would indicate
that the petitioner and a teacher by name Lincy Joseph, who was appointed by the
Manager (the petitioner herein) were heard by the first respondent. The order does not
indicate that the Manager was heard. The order also does not disclose the contentions
put forward by the Manager though Ext.P5 detailed argument note dated 10th October
2006 was submitted by the Manager. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
W.P.(C) No. 7980 OF 2008
2
petitioner that though the petitioner received a notice from the first respondent and he
appeared on the date fixed, the matter was not taken up on that date and he was not
informed about the adjourned date and thereby he was deprived of an opportunity of
being heard.
3. On a perusal of the order, it cannot be said that the petitioner was also
heard. There is no case for the third respondent that the petitioner was also heard by
the first respondent. Learned Government Pleader also has not controverted the
contention raised by the petitioner that he was not heard. Since the petitioner was not
heard, Ext.P7 order is violative of the principles of natural justice. The contentions put
forward by the petitioner were not considered by the first respondent. Hence the
matter requires fresh consideration by the first respondent. Therefore, Ext. P7 order is
quashed. The first respondent shall dispose of the matter afresh, after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, Neena Mathai (third respondent herein) and
Lincy Joseph and also any other affected person. Notice in advance shall be issued to
the aforesaid persons and the first respondent shall dispose of the matter, as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk