High CourtsSingle Bench

Manager, (B. Abdul Majeed) vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 31 May 2023 · Citation: (2023) 05 KL CK 0271

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No.17342 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 453 words

P.V. Kunhikrishnan,J

1.

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. declare that the 2nd Petitioner is entitled to get approval as Manager of Valiyaparamba AMUP School.

ii. call for Exhibit P-3 and set aside the same by issue a writ of certiorari or other writ appropriate order or direction.

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to approve the change of management of Valiyaparamba AM UP School in favor of the 2nd Petitioner without involving ownership of the School.

iv. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd Respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P-4 adverting to Exhibits P-6, P-7 and P-8.

v. to dispense with filing of English translation of vernacular documents produced along with the Writ Petition.

vi. pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2.

When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 within a time frame. The counsel also submitted that there may be an order allowing the 1st petitioner to continue as the Manager of the School till orders are passed in Ext.P4.

3.

Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4.

The Government Pleader submitted that if this Court is allowing the 1st petitioner to continue as Manager, there may be a direction not to make any appointment in the school and not to take any policy decision till orders are passed in Ext.P4.

5.

After hearing both sides, I think this writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 within a time frame. Till then, the 1st petitioner can be allowed to continue the Manager subject to certain conditions.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1.

The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P4, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this judgment.

2.

The 1st petitioner is allowed to continue as Manager in the School till orders are passed as directed above in Ext.P4 by the 2nd respondent on condition that the 1st petitioner will not make any fresh appointment in the school and he will not take any policy decision.

3.

The petitioners will produce a stamped certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance.