IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37422 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.C.RAMAKRISHNAN, HEADMASTER (UNDER SUSPENSION), S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, NALLAMANDANCHELLA VELAYODI P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, NALLAMANDANCHELLA, VELAYODI P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHITTUR, CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA FOR R2, R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 5072 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.37422/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 19-3-03. P2 COPY OF THE ODER DT 30-5-05. P2(A) COPY OF THE ORDER DT 19-8-05. P2(B) COPY OF THE ORDER DT 25-8-05. P2(C) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 21-10-09. P2(D) COPY OF THE ORDER DT 25-8-05. P2(E) COPY OF THE ORDER DT 3-9-05. P2(F) COPY OF THE ORDER DT 9-11-05 P2(G) COPY OF THE ORDER DT 6-12-05. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 3-1-06. P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 7-7-06 P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 14-7-06. P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 25-8-08 P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 16-12-09 ISSUED BY R1. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 37422 of 2009 and 5072 of 2010 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Common issues and facts are involved in these writ petitions and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to in the order of status in W.P.(C) No.5072/2010. So also the documents are being referred to in the manner they are set out in the said writ petition unless otherwise specifically provided. The petitioner is the first respondent in W.P.(C) No.37422/2009 filed by the fifth respondent herein challenging Ext.P7 therein whereby he was placed under suspension. The fifth respondent is the Headmaster of S.N.U.P. School and the petitioner is its Manager. 2. The fourth respondent, as per Ext.P3, granted permission to place the fifth respondent under suspension beyond fifteen days. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the AEO, Chittoor, the fifth respondent, approached the Government. The contention of the petitioner is that subsequent to the receipt of the petition from the fifth respondent, Government have called for a WPC.37422/09 & 5072/2010 : 2 : report from the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad. However, upon his failure to submit a report as called for by the Government, the Government have issued Ext.P9 order dated 09- 02-2010 directing the Manager to reinstate the fifth respondent in service. The core contention of the petitioner is that the mandatory requirement under Rule 92(2) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules was not followed by the Government while passing Ext.P9. It is contended that the copy of the petition submitted by the fifth respondent was not served on the petitioner and that he was not issued with a notice of hearing. Needless to say that he was also not afforded with an opportunity of being heard. Since the said factual position was not disputed by any of the respondents, I think it unnecessary to go into the details any further. It is mandatory that before considering a revision petition filed under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules, copy of the revision petition shall be furnished to the person concerned along with a notice requiring him make representation. Failure to follow such a course will be violative not only of the principles of natural justice but Rule 92(2)(ii) of Chapter XIV-A as WPC.37422/09 & 5072/2010 : 3 : well. In this case, the specific assertion of the Manager is that he was not served with a copy of the petition submitted by the concerned teacher and he was not given a notice as required under Rule 92(2)(ii). On that sole score, I think Ext.P9 is liable to be interfered with. I do so. Ext.P9 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the petition submitted by the fifth respondent in accordance with the provisions under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules. Needless to say that before considering the revision petition filed by the fifth respondent, the petitioner shall be served with a copy of the petition submitted by the fifth respondent and a decision on the same shall be taken with notice to the concerned teacher, viz., the fifth respondent, and the Manager, expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge