Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

E.M.SUMATHY, W/O V.V.PRABHAKARAN versus THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


E.M.SUMATHY, W/O V.V.PRABHAKARAN v. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER - WP(C) No. 24680 of 2007(K) [2007] RD-KL 16273 (22 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24680 of 2007(K)

1. E.M.SUMATHY, W/O V.V.PRABHAKARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

4. A.T.JOSEPHINE, H.S.A.(SANSKRIT),

5. THE MANAGER,

6. STATE OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

For Respondent :SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN

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. 24680 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 the learned Government Pleader and having perused the materials on record, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the petitioner should be directed to pursue the statutory remedy available to her, if so advised.

2. It is brought to my notice that petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 before respondent No.3 highlighting the so called irregularity and incongruity in Ext.P3 order passed by respondent No.2. However, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that respondent No.2 has already issued orders regularising the period of suspension of respondent No.4. Yet again I refrain from making any observation on this aspect. In my view these are all matters which have to be taken up before the appropriate statutory authority, if any of the parties is aggrieved. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to take a decision on Ext.P5, if it is pending before him, strictly on its merit and in WPC NO 24680/07 Page numbers accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondent No.3 shall afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 also, before any decision is taken in the matter.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

vps WPC NO 24680/07 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.