IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 807 of 2008(U) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ P.S.BALASUBRAMANIAM, MANAGER, PRABODHINI UPS, VAKKOM P.O., (VARKALA EDUCATIONAL SUB DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VARKALA. 5. S.ASOKAN, BUNGLAVIL HOUSE, VAKKOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T. MAHMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 807 of 2008 APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.4.2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.10.2007 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.12.2007 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 807 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of the Government on the ground that before passing that order, the petitioner was not heard. Ext.P3 order was passed in accordance with the directions of this Court in judgment dated 22.10.2007 in W.P. (C) No.31041/07. As is clear from Ext.P3 itself in that judgment, the direction to the Government was to consider the revision petition filed by the 5th respondent within two months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all concerned. From paragraph 3 of Ext.P3 it is very evident that the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of Ext.P3 and a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also. 2. This is stoutly opposed by the counsel for the 5th respondent. He would submit that the petitioner has approached this Court suppressing the fact that there are interim orders passed by the Munsiff Court, Varkala in the matter prohibiting the W.P.(c) No.807/08 2 petitioner from interfering with the management of the School. He would also submit that the 5th respondent was allowed to continue as the Manager of the School. 3. I am not going into those contentions now, because admittedly the Government was directed to pass orders on the revision petition filed by the 5th respondent, after hearing all concerned. In Ext.P1 it is specifically stated that the appointment of the petitioner herein as the Manager was approved by the Educational Authorities. By Ext.P3 order, that finding has been now upset. Therefore evidently the petitioner was a necessary party to be heard in the matter. That being so, Ext.P3 order passed without hearing the petitioner is clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed and the 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on the revision petition filed by the 5th respondent, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.807/08 3