Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

V. Prasad Vs. State of Kerala

V. Prasad vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 20, 2012
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1009542

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V. Prasad

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....- - - - - - - - - - - - - - w.p.(c) no.31006 of 201.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated this the 20th day of december , 2012 judgment the petitioner originally came to be appointed in a leave vacancy in the fifth respondent's school during the period from 2.6.2008 to 17.10.2011. the said appointment given as per ext.p1 came to be rejected by the deo as per ext.p2 order, which was confirmed as per ext.p3 order passed by the third respondent. later, the petitioner was appointed against an additional vacancy vide ext.p4. but approval was rejected by the deo as per ext.p5 order. this was confirmed by the third respondent as per ext.p6.2. met with the situation, the petitioner has already approached the first respondent by filing ext.p8, which is a consolidated revision petition against the impugned orders in respect of two different spells. in the meanwhile, the petitioner came to be included in the teachers' package and is drawing salary with effect from 1.6.2011. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the w.p.(c)no.31006/2012 2 only relief sought for is to cause ext.p8 to be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time.3. considering the limited nature of the relief sought for, this court does not find it necessary to issue notice to respondents 5 and 6 for the time being. the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider ext.p8 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and so also to respondents 5 and 6 at the earliest, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. p.r.ramachandra menon judge sv. w.p.(c)no.31006/2012 2

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 29TH AGRAHAYANA 193 WP(C).No. 31006 of 2012 (A) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- V. PRASAD,, AGED 2 YEARS S/O.K.M.MOHANAN, UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL, ANGADIPURAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT”

321. BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM”

001.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505.

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT”

505.

5. THE MANAGER, THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL, ANGADIPURAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 321.

6. THE HEADMASTER, THARAKAN HIGH SCHOOL, ANGADIPURAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 321. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31006 of 2012 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 2 6.2008. P2- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.B4/4479/08 DATED 20 2.2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P3- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS. B2/10726/09 DATED 12 11.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1 6.2009. P5- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS.B4/3977/09 DATED 21 11.2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P6- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS. B2/36528/09 DATED 13 5.2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.60930/J2/11/G.EDN. DATED 25 10.2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT. P8- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 21 11.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE Shg/ P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.31006 OF 201.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of December , 2012 JUDGMENT The petitioner originally came to be appointed in a leave vacancy in the fifth respondent's school during the period from 2.6.2008 to 17.10.2011. The said appointment given as per Ext.P1 came to be rejected by the DEO as per Ext.P2 order, which was confirmed as per Ext.P3 order passed by the third respondent. Later, the petitioner was appointed against an additional vacancy vide Ext.P4. But approval was rejected by the DEO as per Ext.P5 order. This was confirmed by the third respondent as per Ext.P6.

2. Met with the situation, the petitioner has already approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P8, which is a consolidated revision petition against the impugned orders in respect of two different spells. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to be included in the Teachers' Package and is drawing salary with effect from 1.6.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the W.P.(C)No.31006/2012 2 only relief sought for is to cause Ext.P8 to be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time.

3. Considering the limited nature of the relief sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to respondents 5 and 6 for the time being. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P8 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and so also to respondents 5 and 6 at the earliest, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv. W.P.(C)No.31006/2012 2

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial