IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 1084 of 2011(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.983/2010 Dated 30/06/2010 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN COC.1440/2010 Dated 07/04/2011 .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND PETITIONER IN WA; ------------------------------------ PRASANTH KUMAR K.P.,AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.LATE ACHUTHA PRAKASAN, ACHU DEVI KRIPA, POKKUNNI, VADAVANNUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): 6TH RESPONDENT IN WA ----------------------------------- SMT.ANNAMMA GEORGE, AGE & NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MANAGER, POLACHIRAKAL HIGH SCHOOL, PADAGIRI P.O., NELLIAMPATHI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 511. ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN FOR R1 SRI.P.BABU KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: COC NO.1084/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF LETTER DATED 25/07/2008 SENT BY THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM. ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 16/10/2008 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO SMT.K.P.INDIRA. ANNEXURE-C : COPY OF ORDER DATED 05/12/2008 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM. ANNEXURE-D : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 05/03/2010 PASSED IN WP(C) NO.28108/2009 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE-E : COPY OF ORDER DATED 30/03/2010 PASSED IN R.P.NO.302/2010 IN WP(C) 28108/2009 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE-F : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30/06/2010 PASSED IN W.A.NO.983/2010 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE-G : COPY OF ORDER DATED 07/04/2011 PASSED IN CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO.1440/2010 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE-H : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 01/06/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE- I : COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF HEALTH DATED 23/05/2011 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-J : COPY OF CONDUCT CERTIFICATE DATED 24/05/2011 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-K : COPY OF DECLARATION DATED 01/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-L : COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 23/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAVANNUR. ANNEXURE-M : COPY OF ORDER DATED 05/07/2011 PASSED IN I.A.NO.386/2011 IN W.A.NO.983/2011 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE-N : COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPOINTMENT. ANNEXURE-O : COPY OF JOINING PAPER DATED 01/06/2011. ANNEXURE-P : COPY OF ORDER DATED 25/06/2011 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER. COC NO.1084/2011 ANNEXURE-Q : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 28/06/2011 SENT BY THE HEADMISTRESS TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-R : COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 07/07/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-S : COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 11/07/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-T : COPY OF ORDER NO.08/2011/CA/PHS DATED 14/07/2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE-U : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-V : COPY OF GO(P) NO.12/99/P&ARD DATED 24/05/1999. ANNEXURE-W : COPY OF GO(P) NO.12/99/P&ARD DATED 24/05/1999. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... COC No.1084 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Grievance is not against want of compliance of judgment but the effort of the respondent to recall the orders issued pursuant to judgment which is nothing but an undertaking of the respondent to give appointment to the 2nd appellant in the Writ Appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even after issuing order pursuant to the undertaking given in Court, which form part of the judgment, the respondent was compelled to propose revocation of the order because of suppression of material facts by the petitioner in the Contempt of Court Case. However, the suppression is about the appointment offered to petitioner's mother, who declined to accept the same. We do not think there is any scope for considering this objection COC No.1084/2011 2 because the mother of the petitioner is the 1st appellant in the Writ Appeal. Further between the two legal heirs, naturally the younger in age, i.e. her son in whose favour the widow gave up her claim, prefers to make the claim. We do not find any substance in the so called suppression or any disability for petitioner's entitlement merely because his widowed mother declined the appointment offered on compassionate ground. This Contempt of Court Case is therefore closed directing the respondent not to pursue the notice issued to the petitioner and treat it as closed. The petitioner should be allowed to rejoin duty treating the appointment order issued pursuant to the judgment as valid. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg