High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
DR. KUMARI VALSALA B. v. SMT. K.JAYALEKSHMI - RP No. 48 of 2007(N)  RD-KL 4327 (27 February 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMRP No. 48 of 2007(N)
1. DR. KUMARI VALSALA B.,
1. SMT. K.JAYALEKSHMI,
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
3. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.R.P. NO. 48 OF 2007 IN W.P.(C). NO. 21973 OF 2006
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2007
O R D E RThis Review Petition is filed at the instance of the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C). No. 21973/06. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Principal, Maharaja's College, Ernakulam, to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2, which was stated to have been filed by the writ petitioner. There was a specific direction that before taking any decision on Ext.P2, the Principal shall ensure that not only the petitioner but also respondent No.3/the review petitioner herein, shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. It was further directed that the writ petitioner shall forward copies of all the documents referred to in the writ petition to respondent No.3/review petitioner in advance.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner that the writ petitioner had never submitted Ext.P2 representation before the Principal. But it is the admitted position that the Principal, who is now holding the office had assumed charge after Ext.P2 had been reportedly submitted. I do not propose to go into the above question since it is not in disputed that the Principal had in fact heard both sides. RP NO. 48/07 Page numbers Annexure A2 order was passed by the Principal after considering Ext.P2 representation in compliance with the directions issued by this Court. The order passed by the Principal undoubtedly shows that she had kept the interest of the institution in mind while considering the issue. She had in no uncertain terms advised both the writ petitioner and the review petitioner to keep the dignity of the office in mind while discharging their duties. The anxiety of the petitioner is understandable. If, in fact the writ petitioner had not filed Ext.P2, as contended by the review petitioner, it is definitely a matter for concern. But, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, particularly in the absence of any specific averment in Annexure A2 that Ext.P2 had not been received in the office of the Principal, I do not deem it necessary to reopen the healing wounds. Let the advice given by the Principal prevail. It is hoped that the parties concerned will respect and implement the advice/instructions given by the Principal. The Review Petition is closed.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGEvps RP NO. 48/07 Page numbers
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGEOP NO.
21st DECEMBER, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.