IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21109 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ARCH DIOCESE OF VERAPOLY, ST.ALBERT'S H.S.S. CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, FR. JACOB BAIJU BEN. BY ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (GENERAL EDUCATION), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.21109 of 2009-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by Ext.P14 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education. As per the said order, the petitioner is disqualified from the post of Manager in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 7(2) of Chapter IIII read with Rule 8(8) of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. The petitioner had earlier approached this court aggrieved by an earlier order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, viz. Ext.P7 herein. The said writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P8 judgment directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. It was held by this court that normally a writ petition would not be entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy. In the light of the said judgment wherein the petitioner itself is the writ petitioner, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition which challenges Ext.P14 order passed by the very same officer. It cannot be said that the remedy of revision under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. is not efficacious, even though learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that for violation of the various provisions of Rule 7 of Chapter wpc 21109/2009 2 III K.E.R. this court can entertain the writ petition and adjudicate the matter. The said aspect also can be considered by the revisional authority. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P14 in accordance with law. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/