Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.T.MOHAMMED ALI versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.T.MOHAMMED ALI v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 25230 of 2007(C) [2007] RD-KL 16293 (22 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 25230 of 2007(C)

1. K.T.MOHAMMED ALI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. M.ABDULLA,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :22/08/2007

O R D E R

A.K. BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C). NO. 25230 OF 2007

Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sathyanatha Menon, who accepts notice for respondent No.4, and also the learned Government Pleader, I am satisfied that this writ petition can be disposed of without referring to the rival contentions raised by the parties.

2. It is the admitted position that petitioner has preferred Ext.P11 revision petition before respondent No.1 against Ext.P10 order issued by the Director of Public Instruction. By the impugned order, the Director had reversed the order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer and directed the officer to approve the appointment of respondent No.4 as the manager of Madrasa, A.L.P. School, Wandoor, as per Rule 4 Chapter III KER. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the revisional authority can be directed to take a decision in the matter afresh, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to all concerned. WPC NO 25230/07 Page numbers In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 strictly on its 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. Respondent No.1 shall ensure that petitioner, respondent No.4 and all others who are likely to be affected by the order that may be passed, are afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken. Status quo as on today shall be maintained till a final decision is taken in the matter. Petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondent No.1 for compliance.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

vps WPC NO 25230/07 Page numbers

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

OP NO.20954/00

JUDGMENT

1ST MARCH, 2007


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.