IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 15606 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.S. BALASUBRAMANIAM, MANAGER, PRABODHINI UPS, VAKKOM P.O. (VARKALA EDUCATIONAL SUB DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VARKALA. 5. S. ASOKAN, BUNGLAVIL HOUSE, VAKKOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR FOR R5 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON 06/10/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.15606/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.04.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.10.2007 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.12.2007 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.2.2008 IN WPC NO.807/2008 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.2.2008 IN WA NO.485/08 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.04.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBITS OF R5 EXT.R5(1): THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER INTIMATED BY THE CONVENOR OF SNDP UNION, CHIRAYINKEEZHU ON 22.11.07. EXT.R5(2): THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.498/07 DT 31.5.2008. EXT.R5(3): THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.498/07 DATED 31.5.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 15606 OF 2008 (G) ==================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer made in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P8 and to direct respondents 1 to 4 not to implement the same and to treat the petitioner as the Manager of Prabhodhini U.P. School. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Manager of the school effective from 20/1/2004. Against the appointment, the 5th respondent approached the 4th respondent and requested that he should be appointed as the Manager. That was rejected by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P1 order. Against Ext.P1 order, the 5th respondent filed an appeal to the 3rd respondent and that was also rejected by Ext.P2. Thereafter, he filed a revision to the 1st respondent. Without issuing notice to the petitioner or hearing him, the revision was allowed by Ext.P3 order, against which the petitioner filed WP(C) No.807/2008 before this Court. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing reconsideration of the matter with notice to the parties. Though the 5th respondent filed WA No.485/08, that was dismissed by Ext.P5 judgment. Thereafter the 1st respondent issued Ext.P6 notice requiring the petitioner to appear for hearing at 11 a.m on 18/3/2008. Petitioner submits that he WPC 15606/08 :2 : filed Ext.P7 representation requesting for a copy of the revision petition and that without furnishing copies or other documents, the 1st respondent heard the parties and issued Ext.P8 allowing the revision filed by the 5th respondent against Ext.P2 order. It is challenging Ext.P8, this writ petition was filed. 3. Two contentions were raised. First is that though Ext.P7 was filed, the 1st respondent did not issue copies, but proceeded to hear parties on 18/3/2008 itself and passed Ext.P8 order. However, a reading of para 3 of Ext.P8 shows that at the hearing, the petitioner appeared only at 11.20 a.m and refused to mark the attendance and was not willing to explain his arguments in the case and left the venue of hearing. 4. Since no mention is made about Ext.P7 request said to have been made by the petitioner for supply of copies on 25.9.2008, learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions as to whether Ext.P7 was received by the 1st respondent. This was all the more so for the reason that the petitioner did not produce any document to prove that Ext.P7 was filed before the 1st respondent on 18/3/2008 as claimed by him. Learned Government Pleader thereupon obtained instructions from WPC 15606/08 :3 : the 1st respondent and submitted before Court today that Ext.P7 application was not received from the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not placed any material on record to prove his submission that Ext.P7 was filed or the submission of the learned Government Pleader to be incorrect, accepting the submission so made, the contention of the petitioner that in response to Ext.P7, copies were not supplied is only to be rejected. 5. The second submission that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was relying on Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER. In so far as it is relevant, Rule 92 which conferred power of revision on the Government, relied on by the petitioner is extracted below for reference. Where the Government propose to revise an order in pursuance of a revision petition filed by a party, a copy of the revision petition is furnished to the person concerned along with a notice requiring him to make representation, if any, in the matter in writing within a period specified in the notice and the Government pass final orders in revision after consideration of such representation. 6. Relying on the above, it is contended that along with the notice of hearing, copy of the revision petition ought to have been furnished to the petitioner. In my view, Rule 92 relied on by the counsel WPC 15606/08 :4 : has no relevance in so far as this case is concerned. Approval of appointment of Manager is as provided in Rule 4 of Chapter III KER, which reads as follows: 4.Approval of appointment of Managers - (1) The Educational Officers shall be competent to approve the appointment of Managers by Educational Agencies and to approve changes in the personnel of the Managers. (2) If the Educational Agencies have schools in more than one Educational District within a Revenue District the appointment of managers and changes in the personnel of the managers may be approved by the Deputy Director (Education) having jurisdiction in the Revenue District If the Educational Agencies have schools in more than one Revenue District the appointment of Managers and changes in the personnel of the Managers may be approved by the Director of Public Instruction. (2A) The approval of appointment of Managers and Changes in the personnel of the Managers under sub-rules (1) and (2) above shall take effect from the date of actual assumption of charge of the management specified in the order of approval issued by the competent authorities concerned. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Educational Officer under sub-rule (1) or of the Deputy Director (Education) under sub-rule (2) may within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order prefer an appeal to the Director. (4) Government may, on their own motion or otherwise, revise any order passed by the Director of Public Instruction. 7. The revision filed by the 5th respondent can only be in terms of WPC 15606/08 :5 : Rule 4(4). Unlike Rule 92 relied on by the petitioner, Rule 4(4) does not mandatorily require furnishing of copies. True, it may a requirement of natural justice that the documents relied on against a person should be disclosed to him. But then, in this case, as already noticed, when the petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent on 18/3/2008, if he wanted copies to be furnished, he could have made a request in that behalf. On facts, it is proved that Ext.P7 request was not made. Therefore, the petitioner having not availed of the opportunity to seek disclosure of the documents relied on against him and having opted not to avail of the opportunity, cannot now turn around and contend that by not furnishing him copies, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice. If at all the petitioner has not been given copies, it is a situation of his own creation and he cannot claim aid of natural justice to wriggle out of the situation. 8. That apart, petitioner has not even pleaded that by failure to furnish copy, any prejudice has been caused. May be it was possible for the petitioner to have raised such a plea if he had participated in the hearing. It is recorded in Ext.P8 that petitioner did not participate in the WPC 15606/08 :6 : hearing on 18/3/2008 and hence, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has suffered any prejudice by non supply of the copies of the documents. The two points urged by the counsel for the petitioner are only to be rejected and I do so. Consequently writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp