IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 31385 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.S.MANI, MANAGER, V.M.L.P.SCHOOL, PALAKKAPOTTA, AYALUR PO., PALAKKAD DT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATINAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 5. P.VIJAYALAKSHMI, RETIRED TEACHER AISWARYA NEW STREET, AYALUR POST PALAKKAD. 6. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DT.. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 31385 OF 2008 (J) ==================== Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Following Exts.P1 and P2 directing reinstatement of a teacher. Petitioner, being the Manager of the School, was proceeded against and ultimately monetary liability was fixed on him. Against that order, petitioner filed appeal before the 1st respondent evidenced by Ext.P4. 2. In WP(C) No.34558/04, this Court directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal within 3 months and that judgment is Ext.P5 dated 7/1/05. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the appeal has not been disposed of so far and that though revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, that has not been proceeded with in view of the judgment. 3. While the matter is pending as above, Ext.P9 show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad proposing to disqualify the petitioner based on the aforesaid liability, which is subject matter of the appeal referred to above. On receipt of Ext.P9, petitioner submitted Ext.P10 reply pointing out the pendency of the matter before the Government. Despite the reply, by Ext.P11, hearing was scheduled and at that stage this writ petition was filed. WPC 31385/08 :2 : 4. At the stage of admission, this Court granted stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 scheduling the hearing. Despite the interim order that was passed, when the matter came up for orders on 27/11/2008, counsel for the petitioner complained that ignoring the order of stay, DEO heard the parties and thereupon an order was passed directing him to file an affidavit controverting the said allegation. Accordingly, an affidavit has now been filed reporting that, when communicated of the order passed by this court, hearing scheduled has been deferred. 5. Although the counsel for the petitioner has dispute about the correctness of the stand that is now taken by the DEO, since according to the DEO, the hearing has been postponed and as no orders have been passed pursuant to the so called hearing, I do not think it necessary to probe into the matter any further. 6. Irrespective of the controversy about the hearing that took place, as regards the main dispute raised in the writ petition is concerned, Ext.P4 appeal remains undisposed of despite the direction in Ext.P5 judgment. If that be so, during the pendency of the appeal, it is premature to have issued Ext.P9. Therefore, Ext.P9 has to await the WPC 31385/08 :3 : outcome of Ext.P4 appeal. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 1st respondent shall dispose of Ext.P4 appeal, as directed in Ext.P5, as expeditiously as possible and until orders are passed on Ext.P4 and communicated to the petitioner, further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P9 and P11 will stand deferred. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp