Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE27H DAYOF JANUARY20147TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 30398 of 2013 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- THE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, VIMALA PROVINCE CARMELITE, PROVINCIAL HOUSE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT EUDCATIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
3. NEENA MATHAI, KOLENCHERRY HOUSE, MANICKAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 574.
4. THE UNDER SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1,R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2701-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WP(C).No. 30398 of 2013 (Y) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED3010/2001 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WA NO.546/2000. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3833/07/G.EDN DATED178/2007. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT
DATED3112/2012 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.8628 AND89502009. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.8332/E3/2013/G.EDN DATED218/2013 ISSUED BY THE1T RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED289/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE4H RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED3011/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.7980/2008 DTD. 09/07/2008. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------------ N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 30398 OF2013Y ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE27h DAY OF JANUARY, 2014.
JUDGMENT
Issue involved in this writ petition is regarding appointment of the 3rd respondent on compassionate ground. Order passed by the Government in the revision petition was subjected to repeated challenges before this court. Ultimately this court had set aside the order passed by the Government through Ext.P3 judgment, directing the 1st respondent to re-consider the matter in the light of the observations contained therein and in view of the relevant Government orders and binding judicial precedents. Grievance now voiced is that, pursuant to Ext.P3 the petitioner was invited for a hearing by the Under Secretary to Government, General Education Department. In the hearing the 3rd respondent had produced copies of two documents inorder to establish his contentions regarding the aspect of dependency. But despite specific request, copies of those documents were not furnished to the W.P.(c) No.30398/2013 -2- petitioner. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the 3rd respondent had produced only one document before the Under Secretary at the time of hearing, which is the extract of Ration Card. It is further submitted that on the basis of an oral directions issued by this court, a copy of the said documents was served on the counsel for the petitioner.
2. A further contention raised is that the Under Secretary to Government is not a competent authority to hear the matter. This court is not in a position to accept such contention in view of the fact that the direction issued by this court is to the Government to dispose of the revision petition. If the Under Secretary conducts personal hearing of the matter on behalf of the Government, it cannot be challenged on the basis that the Secretary to Government of the concerned Department himself should conduct personal hearing. This court is of the opinion that the personal hearing conducted by the Under Secretary is on behalf of the Government. W.P.(c) No.30398/2013 -3- 3. It is evident that the Government is in seizin of the matter at present. Unless the Government passes any order, there is no cause of action for the petitioner. Needless to observe that if the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner by such order, he will be at liberty to challenge it in appropriate proceedings.
4. However, in view of the fact that a copy of the document was furnished to the petitioner's counsel it is diserable to afford a further opportunity of personal hearing, if the revision petition has not already been disposed of.
5. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to afford a further opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the 3rd respondent, before finalisation of the review petition, if the same has not already been disposed of. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge