IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 W.P(C).No. 32042 of 2008(M) PETITIONER: -------------- RADHAKRISHNAN KOROTH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, CHALAPARAMBIL, THILENKERY.P.O, KANNUR - 670 702. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.ANEISH RAVINDRA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA. 5. THE MANAGER, KUTTAMBOOR HIGH SCHOOL, PUNNASSERY.P.O, KOZHIKODE. GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 32042 OF 2008 (M) ==================== Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an HSA(Hindi) in the school under the 5th respondent. By Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the issue relating to his approval, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him sufficient opportunity to be heard. Petitioner submits that after Ext.P1 judgment was rendered, he did not hear anything from the 3rd respondent. Thereupon he made enquiry and that he was given Exts.P2 and P3, a letter and an order passed by the 3rd respondent in pursuance to Ext.P1 judgment, by which the approval has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that this order was passed without notice to him. A reading of Exts. P2 and P3 also shows that even according to the Deputy Director, the only address available was his school address and notice to him was routed through the Headmaster. It is the petitioner's specific case that such a course of action was adopted by the Deputy Director despite having residential address of the petitioner and that notice was not received in that address. 3. Irrespective of the controversy, fact remains that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to address his arguments before the WPC 32042/08 :2 : Deputy Director before he passed Ext.P3. I am not prepared to think that if the petitioner had notice, he would have kept away from the Deputy Director at the time when he heard the parties especially for the reason that his very job was at stake. Since Ext.P3 has been passed without hearing the petitioner, I am inclined to direct that the Deputy Director should hear the petitioner and if necessary, revise Ext.P3. 4. It is directed that on production of a copy of this judgment, Deputy Director will issue notice to the petitioner in the postal address, which will be furnished by the petitioner. Deputy Director will also issue notice to the Manager, hear both of them, and if necessary revise Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months.. It is directed that until such fresh orders are passed, Ext.P3 will be kept in abeyance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp