P C RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Headmaster of an aided school. He has some serious disputes with the manager. Several litigations have been filed consequent to disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner, has been initiated by the manager only on account of ill-will. In the meanwhile, certain orders have been passed approving change of managership of the school. According to the petitioner, to defeat the petitioner's contentions, the 5th respondent, who was the original manager, has surreptitiously transferred the ownership to the 6th respondent and the same has been approved by the DEO, which is illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner would contend that the application, which was under Rule 4 of Chapter III of KER has been illegally converted as one under Rule 5A and allowed. Therefore, the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 appeal along with Ext.P8 application for stay before the 2nd respondent-Director of Public Instructions. For the present, the petitioner would be satisfied with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 appeal and Ext.P8 application for stay, expeditiously.

(2.) I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. This Court had ordered notice before admission, but notice have not been served on the respondents. I do not think that for issuing a direction to dispose of Ext.P7 statutory appeal it is necessary to await service of notice on respondents 3 to 6.

(3.) Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 appeal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6. The 2nd respondent shall pass orders on Ext.P8 application for stay within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.