IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1027 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35182/2007 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ K.SREEDHARAN, MASTER ASST.TEACHER MUNICIPAL U.P.SCHOOL, PAYYANNUR (AGED 51, S/O,P.K.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, KAKKOPARATH HOUSE NEAR CHAKKARAPANI TEMPLE, THRIKKARIPPUR ELAMBACHI P.O., KASARGOD BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. RADHA MOHAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY, PAYYANNUR. 2. ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT - ARUN RANGAN (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) PRESENTLY WORKING AS SECRETARY, KOYILANDI MUNICIPALITY, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE - IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.8.2008 IN I.A.496/2008. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R1 ADV. SUNIL NAIR, PALAKKAT THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case No.1027 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 35182/2007 has filed this contempt case alleging that Annexure V interim order in that writ petition has been violated by the respondents. In Annexure V order, I directed that status quo as on the date of the order should be maintained. The act of violation alleged is that the petitioner has not been appointed as teacher-in-charge of the school. Misunderstanding my order as a direction to maintain status quo as obtaining prior to the bifurcation of the school, the Manager issued Annexure VI order. Realising the mistake they passed Annexure VII order, canceling the said order. Petitioners contention is that earlier by Annexure IX order of the Government, Government had directed the Manager to place the petitioner as teacher-in-charge which has not been done, which is alleged as the violation of Annexure V order. The petitioner does not dispute that as on the date of Annexure V order, he was not the teacher-in- charge. His claim is that by virtue of Annexure IX order he ought to have been placed as Cont. Case No.1027 of 2008 - 2 - teacher-in-charge and therefore that was the status quo as on that date. I am unable to agree. By Annexure V order I only directed Status quo as on the date of the order. As on the date of the order, the petitioner was not the teacher-in-charge. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now contend that by not posting him as the teacher-in-charge, the respondents have violated Annexure V order. Therefore, I am not inclined to proceed further with this contempt case. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs