Skip to content
Try for free
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.
See full guide →

Rayes Vs. State of Kerala

Rayes vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 24, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1017677

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

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

Rayes

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and also the learned government pleader. the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, the manager endorsed the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was duly appointed as watchman as per ext.p3 and that the order of appointment was already forwarded for the approval of the third respondent, in accordance with under the provisions of kerala education act. the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that in view of ext.p3 order issued by the competent authority, the fourth respondent, appointing the petitioner as watchman the petitioner could be permitted to join duty in terms of ext.p3. it is submitted that the w.p.c.no.17002 o”2. reluctance on his part to permit the petitioner to join duty solely on account of the receipt of the letter dated 08.07.2013, from the bishop of church of south india, north kerala diocese. the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent made available a copy of a judgment of this court in op(c)no.2372/2013 dated 17.07.2013. it is evident from the same that this held that the fourth respondent is entitled to continue as the corporate manager till 31.07.2013. therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the fourth respondent was not the corporate manager and he was not competent to issue ext.p3. in the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the fifth respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty as watchman on the strength of ext.p3, forthwith subject, of course, of order to be passed by the third respondent on the question of approval of appointment as per ext.p3. c.t.ravikumar, judge r.av

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2013 2ND SRAVANA, 193 WP(C).No. 17002 of 2013 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- RAYES V.S VADASSERY HOUSE, ERANELLUR P.O., MAZHUVANCHERY, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA SRI.S.KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 69 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - PIN 69.014.

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT ”

506. THRISSUR ”

001.

4. THE CORPORATE MANAGER, C.M.S.CORPORATE MANAGEMENT (COCHIN AREA) ROUND WEST, THRISSUR ”

001.

5. THE HEAD MASTER, SNEHALAYAM, CSI HS FOR DEAF (CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA HIGH SCHOOL FOR DEAF) KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT ”

503. R1 TO R3 SRI.VIJULAL, (SR), GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-07-2013. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17002 of 2013 (A) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 30 09/2012 INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR THE POST OF WATCHMAN AT SCHOOL OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXBHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 1 10/2012 ISSUED FROM CSI ST.PAUL'S CHURCH, KUNNAMKULAM IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.MC-10/13/CA DATED 1 7/2013, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNCATION NO.MC-10/13/CA DATED 1 7/2013, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2 7/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL R.AV TRUE COPY PATO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR.J.

================= W.P.C.NO.17002 of 2013 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of July 2013. JUDGMENT ----------------- The petitioner was appointed as a watchman under the fourth respondent school as per Ext.P3. This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the fifth respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty as watchman in Snehalayam, CSI, HS for Deaf, Kunnamkulam on the strength of Ext.P3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, the Manager endorsed the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was duly appointed as watchman as per Ext.P3 and that the order of appointment was already forwarded for the approval of the third respondent, in accordance with under the provisions of Kerala Education Act. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that in view of Ext.P3 order issued by the competent authority, the fourth respondent, appointing the petitioner as watchman the petitioner could be permitted to join duty in terms of Ext.P3. It is submitted that the W.P.C.NO.17002 o”

2. reluctance on his part to permit the petitioner to join duty solely on account of the receipt of the letter dated 08.07.2013, from the Bishop of Church of South India, North Kerala Diocese. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent made available a copy of a judgment of this Court in OP(C)No.2372/2013 dated 17.07.2013. It is evident from the same that this held that the fourth respondent is entitled to continue as the Corporate Manager till 31.07.2013. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the fourth respondent was not the Corporate Manager and he was not competent to issue Ext.P3. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the fifth respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty as watchman on the strength of Ext.P3, forthwith subject, of course, of order to be passed by the third respondent on the question of approval of appointment as per Ext.P3. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE R.AV

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Rayes vs State of Kerala Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.T.Ravikumar
Education

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales