IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WA.No. 857 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8048/2009 Dated 11/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT ---------------------------- SHAHUL HAMEED.K, LAB ASSISTANT, M.D.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLINGALPARAMBA, RESIDING AT KOTTAYIL HOUSE, KURUKA-676 551. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------ 1. SRI.K.ABDUL LATHEEF, MANAGER, M.S.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLINGALPARAMBA, KALPAKANCHERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. --------------------------- W.A No. 857 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the Manager of the school to consider the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the appellant was found to be involved in an act of indiscipline in as much as he conducted a sit in strike in the school and the Director had already imposed a punishment of warning. However, the Manager approached the Government stating that higher punishment is called for and he should be given the freedom to take decision. Since the Government did not act upon the Manager's appeal, he came to this Court which upheld the Manager's right to take disciplinary action against the appellant. It is this decision that is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The main contention raised by the counsel is that when the matter is taken up for consideration by the Government in an appeal by the Manager, he cannot simultaneously approach this Court to W.A..No.857/2010 2 establish his right as manager. The counsel relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Saji Varghese v. Mohammedkutty and Others (2009 (4) KHC 44) on the contention that once the matter is pending before the statutory authority this Court should not have interfered in writ proceedings. However writ is an extra ordinary remedy and once the court proceeds to consider the case on merits, there is no scope for allowing another authority to decide the same matter which stands decided in a writ proceeding. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Consequently the writ appeal is dismissed leaving it open to the appellant to challenge the final decision taken in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the Manager. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE ) P.S.GOPINATHAN (JUDGE ) vps W.A..No.857/2010 3 W.A..No.857/2010 4