Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAGHI VARGHESE,ELUVATHINGAL HOUSE versus STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAGHI VARGHESE,ELUVATHINGAL HOUSE v. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL - WP(C) No. 18493 of 2007(B) [2007] RD-KL 10499 (18 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18493 of 2007(B)

1. RAGHI VARGHESE,ELUVATHINGAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. MANAGER,K.A.U.P. SCHOOL,

5. SHRI.K.K.SREEKUMAR,UPSA,K.A.U.P. SCHOOL

For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :18/06/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.18493 OF 2007

Dated this the 18th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims that she was appointed as Lower Primary School Assistant in the school under the management of respondent no.4 in a newly created post with effect from July 30, 2003. The appointment was refused to be approved on the ground that appointment of a Rule 51(A) claimant had been rejected. It is pointed out by the petitioner that respondent no.5 who was the Rule 51(A) claimant is none other than son of respondent no.4, the Manager.

2. Anyhow, I do not propose to deal with the above contentions in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar. He submits that petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 revision petition before respondent no.1 against the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting approval. It is also pointed out that pursuant to the direction issued by the revisional authority, remarks have already been forwarded by respondent no.2. W.P.(C)No.18493 OF 2007 The limited prayer is to issue an appropriate direction to respondent no.1 to take a decision on Exts.P2 and P3 expeditiously.

3. In the above facts and circumstances, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P3 strictly on their merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention, respondent no.1 shall ensure that the petitioner, manager and respondent no.5 are afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the matter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of the judgment before respondent no.1 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

jes


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.