The Manager Vs. the State of Kerala - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[c.r. kumaraswamy j.] this criminal petition is filed under section-482 of code of criminal procedure praying to allow the application filed in the court below under section-311 of code of criminal procedure to recall pws.l to 4 for the purpose of cross-examination and to provide an opportunity for the petitioners to cross-examine pws.l to 4 and also to recall the order dated 20.9.2010 passed in s.c. no. 198/2009 pending on the file of the prl. district & sessions judge, mysore.k.t.sankaran, j.w.p.(c).no.33827 of 2010dated this the 15th day of november, 20101. the petitioner is the manager of knm mes up school, edathala. it is stated that during 2009-2010, out of the total number of 14 class divisions sanctioned, one class division each was sanctioned as english medium parallel division. however, as per exhibit p1 staff fixation order for 2010-2011, the assistant educational officer while sanctioning the number of class divisions for standards i to vii did not sanction any english medium parallel division. on enquiry by the petitioner, he came to know that non sanctioning of english medium parallel division was on the basis of a letter issued by the government to the district educational officer, ottappalam stating that english medium parallel divisions could be sanctioned only after ensuring the functioning of at least two malayalam medium class divisions and that only the third division could be converted as english medium division. according to the petitioner, g.o.(ms) no.148/03/gen. edn. dated 5.6.2003 (exhibit p3) could be interpreted to mean that when there are two class divisions, one can be english medium and that it is not necessary to have three divisions to sanction one english medium division. challenging exhibit p1, the petitioner filed exhibit p4 revision dated 14th september, 2010 before the government. it is stated that since interpretation of a government order is involved, the petitioner thought that it would not be advisable to file an appeal or revision before any authority below the government. exhibit p4 is pending disposal. 2. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, it would be sufficient, if exhibit p4 is directed to be considered and disposed of by the government expeditiously. 3. taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of as follows :the first respondent shall dispose of exhibit p4 revision dated 14th september, 2010 submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. the petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent.

Judgment:
K.T.SANKARAN, J.

W.P.(C).No.33827 of 2010

Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010

1. The petitioner is the Manager of KNM MES UP School, Edathala. It is stated that during 2009-2010, out of the total number of 14 class divisions sanctioned, one class division each was sanctioned as English medium parallel division. However, as per Exhibit P1 staff fixation order for 2010-2011, the Assistant Educational Officer while sanctioning the number of class divisions for Standards I to VII did not sanction any English medium parallel division. On enquiry by the petitioner, he came to know that non sanctioning of English medium parallel division was on the basis of a letter issued by the Government to the District Educational Officer, Ottappalam stating that English medium parallel divisions could be sanctioned only after ensuring the functioning of at least two Malayalam medium class divisions and that only the third division could be converted as English medium division. According to the petitioner, G.O.(MS) No.148/03/Gen. Edn. dated 5.6.2003 (Exhibit P3) could be interpreted to mean that when there are two class divisions, one can be English medium and that it is not necessary to have three divisions to sanction one English medium division. Challenging Exhibit P1, the petitioner filed Exhibit P4 revision dated 14th September, 2010 before the Government. It is stated that since interpretation of a Government Order is involved, the petitioner thought that it would not be advisable to file an appeal or revision before any authority below the Government. Exhibit P4 is pending disposal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, it would be sufficient, if Exhibit P4 is directed to be considered and disposed of by the Government expeditiously.

3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows :

The first respondent shall dispose of Exhibit P4 revision dated 14th September, 2010 submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent.