Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.G.PREETHAKUMARY versus THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.G.PREETHAKUMARY v. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS - OP No. 14810 of 2001(K) [2007] RD-KL 3751 (20 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 14810 of 2001(K)

1. P.G.PREETHAKUMARY
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :20/02/2007

O R D E R

Antony Dominic, J.


==============
O.P.No.14810 of 2001
===============

Dated this the 20th day of February, 2007.



JUDGMENT

Petitioner, who was a High School Assistant (Natural Science) under the fourth respondent, faced retrenchment following Ext.P4 staff fixation order and consequent division fall. It is seen that the `appeal filed by the Manager against Ext.P8 resulted in Ext.P11 order of the Deputy Director of Education. Still aggrieved, the Manager pursued the matter further by filing a revision before the first respondent - Director of Public Instructions, evidenced by Ext.P12. One of the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition is to direct the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P12 within a time limit to be specified by this Court. On instructions, Government Pleader submits that Ext.P12 revision filed by the Manager is still pending. In view of the pendency of the statutory revision, evidenced by Ext.P12, it is only appropriate that the first respondent is to be directed to dispose of Ext.P12 as expeditiously as possible.

2. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that his client is entitled to the benefit of Exts.P5 to P7. Since, I am not examining the merits of OP 14810/01 -: 2 :- the rival claims, and is only directing to consider and pass orders on Ext.P12 revision, I am not examining the entitlement of the petitioner for the benefits of Exts.P5 to P7. The relevance or otherwise of Exts. P5 to P7 is certainly a matter to be taken note of by the first respondent while passing orders on Ext.P12.

3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P12 revision petition filed by the fourth respondent with notice to the fourth respondent and the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Antony Dominic Judge. ess 20/2


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.