IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27049 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE MANAGER, AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL (ALP), BOLINJA, YETHADKA P.O., PERDALA VIA., KASARGOD 671551. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUMBALA AT BADIADKA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. SRI.ISHWARA BATT, S/O.MAHABALA BATT, L.P.S.A, A.L.P.SCHOOL, BOLINJA, RESIDING AT METHAJAL HOUSE, BOLLUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO FOR R4 SMT.N.SHOBHA FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.27049/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY DT 28.6.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 29.6.08 SUBMITTED THE FATHER OF A STUDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF SUSPENSION DT 2.7.08 VIDE ORDER NO.08. ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DT 3.7.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 16.7.08 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION ALONG WITH THE PROOF OF DELIVERY DT 5.8.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 12.8.08 VIDE NO.B3- 4536/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 26.8.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DT 15.9.08 ISSUED BY THE HEADMASTER, ALP SCHOOL, BOLINJA. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 27.8.08 ISSUED BY THE HEADMASTER, ALP SCHOOL, BOLINJA. EXTS.OF R4(a): EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 27.8.08 OF THE HEADMASTER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ACCIDENT REGISTER CUM WOUND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TALUK HOSPITAL, KASARAGOD. EXT.R4(b)(i): TRUE COPY OF THE X-RAY REPORT DT 28.6.08 ISSUED BY THE TALUK HOSPITAL, KASARAGOD. EXT.R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17.9.08 OF THE HEADMASTER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. WPC NO.27049/08 -2- EXT.R4(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17.9.08 OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PTA OF THE SCHOOL TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(e): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 17.9.08 OF THE TEACHERS OF THE SCHOOL TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(f): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 28.8.08 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE HEADMASTER. EXT.R4(g): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED NIL OF THE PETITIONER TO THE HEADMASTER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 27049 OF 2008 (T) ==================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P5 and P8. 2. Petitioner is the Manager of an Aided School and the 4th respondent is a teacher. It would appear that the parent of a student had made Ext.P2 complaint alleging that the 4th respondent had assaulted his child, resulting in the child losing his teeth. It is also stated that on a complaint made to the Police, Crime No.140/08 was registered against the 4th respondent for an offence under 325 of the IPC. 3. Taking note of Ext.P2 complaint, the Manager placed the 4th respondent under suspension by Ext.P3 order. However, the 3rd respondent rejected permission to continue the suspension beyond 15 days as required under Rule 67(8) of Chapter XIV A KER vide Ext.P5 order and directed the reinstatement of the 4th respondent. Against Ext.P5, the Manager filed Ext.P6 revision before the 1st respondent and the receipt of Ext.P6 is stated to have been acknowledged on 5/8/08. 4. At that stage, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P7 directing the WPC 27049/08 :2 : Manager of the School to explain the reason for not reinstating the 4th respondent as ordered in Ext.P5. Thereafter DEO issued Ext.P8 directing reinstatement of the 4th respondent, which is addressed to the Headmaster. Admittedly, in implementation of Ext.P8, by Ext.R4(a), the Headmaster reinstated the 4th respondent, who has resumed duties on 27/8/08. 5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions regarding the invalidity of Ext.P8, having regard to the fact that the 4th respondent has already been reinstated, I think the appropriate order be passed is to direct that Ext.P6 revision shall be disposed of on an expeditious basis with notice to all concerned. This the 1st respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 6. As already noticed, it was in pursuance to Ext.P8 that the 4th respondent was reinstated and that too pending consideration of Ext.P6 revision. In view of this, I direct that, in case an order favourable to the petitioner is passed in Ext.P6 revision, the fact that the 4th respondent has WPC 27049/08 :3 : been reinstated in pursuance to Ext.P8, will not create any right or equity, which he can claim before any of the respondents. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp