IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33121 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.KUNH AHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN, P.B.NO.830, 17/1070, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, PUTHIYARA, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. P.AHAMMED KOYA, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN KUTTY, H.NO.SKV-4, THIRUVANNOOR ROAD, THIRUVANNOOR NADA.P.O., CALICUT-673 029. ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN FOR R3 SMT.APARNA RAJAN FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33121 of 2010 M -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is that he was selected as the Manager of Rahmania School for the Handicapped at Parappanangadi. The educational agency of the school is the association for the welfare of the handicapped. The petitioner was elected as the President of the Association and thereby he was appointed as the Manager of the school. It is stated that the third respondent was the Manager since 1997 and he was removed from managership by the resolution dated 22.7.2007 passed by the executive committee of the Association. The petitioner applied to the District Educational Officer, Kozhikode, for approval of the change of management. The District Educational Officer dismissed the application as per Exhibit P3 order dated 10.1.2008. The petitioner challenged Exhibit P3 order in appeal before the Director of Public Instruction, who dismissed the appeal as per Exhibit P4 order WPC No.33121/2010 2 dated 16.7.2009. The petitioner challenged that order in appeal before the first respondent, as per Exhibit P2 appeal dated 14.8.2009. Exhibit P2 is pending disposal, according to the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Exhibit P2 appeal was not traced out and it is not known whether Exhibit P2 was filed before the first respondent. Thereupon the petitioner was directed to produce documents to show that Exhibit P2 appeal was filed. The petitioner produced Exhibits P5 to P7 documents issued by Professional Couriers to show that Exhibit P2 was sent to the first respondent. 3. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that Exhibit P2 produced along with the Writ Petition can be treated as the appeal filed by the petitioner and the first respondent can be directed to dispose of the same expeditiously. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as WPC No.33121/2010 3 follows : The first respondent shall treat Exhibit P2 produced along with the Writ Petition as the appeal presented by the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition, copy of I.A.No.17248 of 2010 and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. The Writ Petitioner shall put his signature on all pages of Exhibit P2. On the production of a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment, the first respondent shall dispose of Exhibit P2, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of three months thereafter, after an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the third respondent. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl