IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 997 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8645/2008 Dated 09/04/2010 .................... APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT: --------------------------------- VISHNU.M.G, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI.B, DEEPAM, PUNUKKONNOOR, ALUMMOODU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRADEEP.K.V, PALLICKAL VEEDU, PAZHANGALAM, NALLILA P.O., KOLLAM-691 515. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. THE MANAGER, U.P.G.S. PUNUKKANOOR, ALUMMOODU P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. MR.V.JAYAPRADEEP FOR R1 MR.O.D.SIVADAS FOR R4 MR.S.SHAJI FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS.T.B.RAMANI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.997 of 2010 - E ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 2. We notice from the judgment and it is after hearing both sides that the learned Single Judge has sent back the matter to the AEO for reconsideration. However, the appeal is filed against the narrow scope of reconsideration retained in the judgment by the learned Single Judge. Mistakes in paragraphs 2 & 3 of the judgment brought to our notice pertains to the date of coming into force of Section 51B and the date on which the 1st respondent in the writ appeal became major. Counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice a defect in the application which according to him is fatal in as much as the application was filed beyond three years from the date on which the 1st respondent became a major. However, counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the application is well within the time in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Government in W.A.No.997 of 2010 - E ::2:: G.O.(MS)No.15/97/G.Edn. Considering the rival claim of both sides, we feel that all issues can be left open to the AEO for reconsideration. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of vacating the findings in the judgment but, by directing the AEO to consider all contentions of the appellant as well as the 1st respondent independently by referring to Government Orders, Rules and decisions of this Court. AEO shall decide the matter within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing both sides. Parties are free to rely on all Government Orders, Rules and decisions of this Court. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-