IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 537 of 2011(Y) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16397/2011 Dated 20/06/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): R4 IN THE WPC ----------------------------------- N.K.VISWANATHAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, 'ARATHI HOUSE', KUNNATHARA VIA, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/ R1 TO 3 & 5 TO 7 IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------ 1. KANHIKKAVU KUNHIKRISHNAN, 'ANITHA NIVAS' NADUVANNOOR P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE-673001. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE. 5. E.MYMOONA, TEACHER, PALORA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ULLIYERI P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 6. K.R.RAJESHKUMAR, PALORA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ULLIYRRI P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 7. N.K.SHYNI, PALORA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ULLIYERI P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN FOR R1 SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA FOR R1 SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN FOR R1 SRI.M.A.THOMAS KUTTY FOR R5,6,7 SMT.ASHA CHERIAN FOR R5,6,7 G.P.SMT.NISHA BOSE FOR R2 TO R4 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 537 of 2011(Y) REVIEW PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-1: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF BYELAW ANNEXURE-1I: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA. ANNEXURE-1II: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE D.E.O VADAKARA DATED 29.9.98. ANNEXURE-1V: COPY OF THE ORDER OF E.E.O, VADAKARA DATED 3.8.2001. ANNEXURE -V: COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO DISTRICT REGISTRAR DATED 6.12.2006. ANNEXURE-V1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5..1.2007 IN WPC.NO.158/07. ANNEXURE-VI1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR DATED 10.4.2007. ANNEXURE-VII1: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC.13373/07 AND CONNECTED MATTER. ANNEXURE-1X: COPY OF THE LIST OF OFFICE BEARERS OF THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE. ANNEXURE-X: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE DATED 5.2.2009. ANNEXURE-X1: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOYILANDY AND I.A. VIZ 349//2010 IN IA.NO.368/2010 IN O.S.NO.68/2010. ANNEXURE-XI1: COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE IN THE MEETING DATED 6.4.2010. ANNEXURE-XII1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOYILANDY IN APPEAL CMA.7/10 DATED 10.11.2010 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. cl T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- Review Petition No.537 OF 2011 in W.P.(C). No.16397 OF 2011 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 O R D E R This Review Petition is filed at the instance of the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The Writ Petition was disposed of at the admission stage directing the Director of Public Instruction to take a decision on Exhibit P6 appeal which was filed by the 1st respondent herein. 4. It is pointed out in the Review Petition that since the Writ Petition was disposed of at the admission stage, the review petitioner could not bring to the notice of this Court various aspects concerning the non-maintainability of the appeal itself. The contention raised appears to be is that the Writ Petitioner is not the President of the School Committee and various proceedings pending before different Fora have been referred to in the Review Petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that if the review petitioner has got a case that the appeal is not maintainable, that question can be considered by the appropriate R.P.NO.537/11 -:2:- authority at the time of hearing of the appeal. It is also pointed out that the review petitioner is not the Manager of the school. 6. Evidently, the Writ Petition was disposed of at the admission stage, since this Court was only directing the authority concerned to dispose of the appeal, of course, with notice to all the parties concerned. But still the disposal at the admission stage, it is pointed out, has caused prejudice to the review petitioner herein who was arrayed as a party respondent in the Writ Petition. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the the contesting respondent, namely the 4th respondent also will have to be heard. In that view of the matter, the Review Petition is allowed. The judgment in W.P(C)No.16397/11 dated 20.6.2011 is recalled. Post the Writ Petition on 22.8.2011. sd/-(T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn