Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P. HARIF HAJEE, S/O.K.M.ABDUL RAHMAN versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P. HARIF HAJEE, S/O.K.M.ABDUL RAHMAN v. THE STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 4458 of 2007(E) [2007] RD-KL 8628 (25 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 4458 of 2007(E)

1. P. HARIF HAJEE, S/O.K.M.ABDUL RAHMAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

3. SRI.T.P. ABUBACKER,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

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

Dated :25/05/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.4458 OF 2007

Dated this the 25th day of May, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner is stated to be the Manager of an aided Higher Secondary School which is admittedly a minority institution as revealed from Ext.P1. Respondent No.3 had been working as Headmaster in the school on deputation as permitted by the Government since 2001 in terms of Exts.P2 and P3. The period of deputation as extended by the Government had expired on September 2, 2006. Before the expiry, the management had requested the Government for a further extension of the deputation for two years. The said request has been turned down by the Government by Ext.P8 order which is impugned in this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel has taken me through the impugned order. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the impugned order has been passed by the Government without any application of mind. It is totally non-speaking and laconic. I do not find any reason why the Government should have taken such a negative approach especially, since the interest of no other W.P.(C)No.4458 OF 2007 individual or institution is likely to be affected, if the 3rd respondent is allowed to work as Headmaster on a deputation basis. The Government does not have a case that respondent No.3 is not willing to continue on deputation.

3. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, Ext.P8 order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed. I do so. The Government shall pass fresh orders in the matter in the light of the observations made above. It shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention that petitioner and respondent no.3 shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any 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. 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.