IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19204 of 2010(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- R.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, MANAGER, R.V.V.H.S.S., VALAKAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA. BY SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.19204/2010 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER DTD. 24.8.07. EXT. P2 : COPY OF NOTICE No.SC(2)/32375/08/DPI DTD. 30.5.08. EXT. P3 : COPY OF ORDER No.SC(2)/32375/08/DPI/DDIS DTD. 10.9.08. EXT. P4 : COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER B2/3477/08/D.DIS DTD. 16.9.08. EXT. P5 : COPY OF REVISION FILED BEFORE GOVT. DTD. 29.9.08. EXT. P6 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION No.60754/A3/08/G.EDN. DTD. 8.1.09/1.4.09. EXT. P7 : COPY OF NOTICE No.B2/3477/08 DTD. 4.5.09. EXT. P8 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15028/09 DTD. 16.9.09. EXT. P9 : COPY OF NOTES DTD. 2.1.10. EXT. P10 : COPY OF G.O.(Rt) No.1437/10/G.EDN. DTD. 29.3.10. EXT. P11 : COPY OF ORDER No.B2/4334/08 DTD. 13.10.08. EXT. P12 : COPY OF ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF SCHOOL FOR the MONTH OF OCTOBER 2008 OF ACADEMIC YEAR 2008-09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19204 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks for a direction to the Government to re-hear the revision petition and pass a fresh order as the order now passed by the Government as per Ext.P10 is allegedly without considering the pleas raised by the petitioner. The operative portion of the order Ext.P10 reads as follows: “A perusal of the hearing notes and argument submitted on behalf of the Manager shows that the same arguments were considered by the Director of Public Instruction, while issuing the impugned order. The Manager could not produce any valid proof to establish his claim that all the pupils objected by the Director of Public Instruction are pupils admitted and studying in the aided school, RVV HSS”. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the arguments raised by the petitioner have been considered on merits after perusing the documents relied on by the petitioner and it is a case where the petitioner had raised various contentions before the Government even during the hearing W.P.(C) No.19204/2010 2 conducted. My attention is also invited to the judgment Ext.P8 wherein in paragraph 5 this Court observed as follows: “Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the staff fixation order for the subsequent years will show that the proceedings Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. If the petitioner places those details before the Government while hearing Ext.P5 revision petition afresh, the same will also be considered by the Government”. 3. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the directions issued by this Court, a cryptic order has been passed as per Ext.P10 that also without independently considering any of the points raised by the petitioner. I find much force in the above submission. No finding has been rendered on the points raised, on its merits. 4. Ext.P9 is the argument note submitted on behalf of the petitioner during the course of hearing. The petitioner relies upon Exts.P11 and P12 documents also. It is pointed out that the same had also been placed before the Government at the time of hearing. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I am not pronouncing anything on the merits of the W.P.(C) No.19204/2010 3 claim since the matter will have to be considered by the Government afresh as the order impugned is not a reasoned one. In that view of the matter, Ext.P10 is quashed. There will be a direction to the Government to re-hear the revision petition Ext.P5, after notice to the petitioner and after hearing an authorised representative, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on the revision petition, the interim order passed by this Court will continue. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp