IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 23764 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJAYAN.V, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE), GOVERNMENT BOYS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNIAKULANGARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.23764 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was assigned the duty of an invigilator for the SSLC examination, 2010, was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 18.3.2010 issued by the Deputy Director of Education. The allegation against the petitioner was that he used mobile phone in the examination hall, as a result of which the SSLC examination was delayed for 15 minutes. Later, as per Ext.P3 order dated 3.6.2010, the suspension imposed on the petitioner was revoked and he was posted at Government BHSS, Kanyakulangara. The petitioner was originally working in the Government High School for Boys, Kattachakonam. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. There is also a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 representation dated 12.7.2010 submitted by the W.P.(C).No.23764 OF 2010 2 petitioner. 2. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing on 12th August, 2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. However, withdrawal was not permitted at that stage. The learned Single Judge directed the first respondent to file an affidavit as to whether any general instructions have been issued imposing restriction on the use of mobile phone in schools. It was also held that the question of withdrawal of the Writ Petition will be considered after the affidavit is filed. 3. An affidavit is filed by the Senior Superintendent in the office of the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram in which it is stated the Commissioner of Examinations issued a circular dated 19.2.2010 banning the use of mobile phones in examination halls. The circular dated 19.2.2010 is produced along with the affidavit as W.P.(C).No.23764 OF 2010 3 Annexure R1(a). 4. The direction issued by this court in the interim order dated 12th August, 2010 is complied with. Now the question arises whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. I do not find any impediment in permitting the petitioner to do so. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate statutory remedies as per law. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms