Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 3RD BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 24937 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: THE MANAGER KOORIKUZHI A.M.U.P SCHOOL, KAIPPAMANGALAM. THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680681 BY ADVS. C.D.DILEEP SHYLAJA VARGHESE M.L.REMYA RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695014 3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680003 4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680567 5 THE HEADMISTRESS KOORIHUZHI AMUP SCHOOL, KAIPAMANGALM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680681
OTHER PRESENT: SR GP SRI. V.K SUNIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 25th day of August, 2023) Petitioner is the Manager of A.M.U.P School, Kaippamangalam, under the jurisdiction of 4th respondent. For the academic year 2022-23, staff fixation proposal was submitted by the 5th respondent. Based on the effective strength of the 6 th working day, the 4th respondent sanctioned only 21 divisions, reducing one division from the 1st standard, one division from the 5th standard and one division from the 7th standard.
2. The case of the petitioner is that there are 612 students, and 24 divisions are available, the petitioner claims only 22 divisions.
3. The petitioner had already filed an appeal before the
3rd respondent challenging the staff fixation order, and the 3 rd respondent passed Ext.P3. Aggrieved by the order in Ext.P3, the petitioner filed a revision before the 2nd respondent evidenced by -3- Ext.P6. The revision was filed on 26.07.2023.
4. The Government Pleader submits that more than 81
revisions are pending before the 2nd respondent. Because of the time constraint, they require at least three months’ time to dispose of the revisions. Having regard to the fact that the revision was filed in July, 2023, and the 2nd respondent is overburdened with the revision petitions, I direct the 3rd respondent to take up Ext.P6 revision petition and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. An opportunity of a hearing may also be afforded to the petitioner before passing orders in Ext.P6. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS -4-
The word “3rd respondent” occurring in the third line of the last paragraph of the judgment dated 25.08.2023 in WP(C) No. 24937/2023 is corrected and substituted as “2 nd respondent” as per the order dated 28.11.2023 in IA Sd/- JOINT REGISTRAR -5- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24937/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT HEADMISTRESS TO THE DGE DATE NIL. Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION OF AEO NO.D.T/C/52517/2022 DATED
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DDETSR/12240/2022-B1 DATED Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF THE KAIPAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 26.07.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DGE