IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 485 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.807/2008 Dated 15/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ 5TH RESPONDENT IN WP(C):- ----------------------------------------------------------- S. ASOKAN, BUNGLAVIL HOUSE, VAKKOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN WP(C):- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, MANAGER, PRABODHINI UPS, VAKKOM P.O., VARKALA EDUCATION SUB DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VARKALA. R2 TO R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.485 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The 5th respondent in the writ petition is the appellant in this appeal. He calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.807/2008 dated 15th February, 2008. (2). The petitioner claims to be the Manager of Prabhodhini Upper Primary School, Vakkom. His appointment as Manager was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer by his proceedings dated 20-1-2004. In Ext.P1 order passed the claim of the 5th respondent that he has been appointed as the Manager of the School had been negatived by the Assistant Educational Officer. (3). Ext.P1 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer has been confirmed by the Director of Public Instructions by Ext.P2 order. (4). The 5th respondent being aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by the Educational Authorities had filed a revision petition before the State Government. The State Government by Ext.P3 order dated 7-12-2007 has allowed the revision petition and thereby has set aside Exts.P1 and P2 orders. (5). The petitioner being aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the State Government was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.807/2008. (6). The primary contention that was canvassed before this Court was that the State Government without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner should not have passed Ext.P3 order and W.A.No.485/2008 -2- thereby set aside Exts.P1 and P2 orders. It was stated before the learned Single Judge that the action of the State Government is in violation of the principles of natural justice. (7). The learned Single Judge after going through the orders passed by the State Government has come to the positive conclusion that Ext.P3 order has been passed by the State Government without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and therefore, set aside Ext.P3 order and has remanded the matter to the State Government to pass fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. (8). Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Government, the 5th respondent has presented this writ appeal. (9). Sri.Anilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend before this Court that the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside Ext.P3 order passed by the State Government solely on the ground that the petitioner in the writ petition was not heard in the matter. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is not the Manager of the School and therefore the question of hearing him would not arise. Further it is stated by Sri. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner has suppressed various material facts including the filing of civil suit before the Civil Court. (10). None of the contentions canvassed by Sri.Anilkumar, learned counsel for the appellant would impress us. By Exts.P1 and P2 orders the claim of the petitioner as Manager of the School has been W.A.No.485/2008 -3- approved. His claim as Manager of the School is accepted by two authorities. Aggrieved by the orders so passed, the 5th respondent who also claims to be the Manager of the School has filed a revision before the State Government. It was expected of the State Government to have heard the petitioner in whose favour Exts.P1 and P2 were passed before passing Ext.P3 order. Since that has not been done, in our opinion, the action of the State Government is contrary to the well established principles of natural justice. Therefore, keeping that aspect of the matter in view, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the State Government and further remanded the matter to the State Government to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of being heard to the party concerned. Having gone through Exts.P1, P2 and P3 orders and also the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error, whatsoever, which would call for our interference. Accordingly, the appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS