G. SURESH Vs. B. SHOBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 5th respondent Manager of the Karavaram Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kallambalam, is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 27/10/2022 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.22794 of 2018.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: The writ petitioner retired as a Headmistress from the aforementioned school on 31/5/2015. While she was in service, disputes arose between her and the appellant herein, particularly on the imputation that the latter did not appoint her and that a junior person was preferred to the post of Headmistress. This led to various proceedings at the hands and instance of the educational authorities under the Kerala Education Act and Rules, and finally, a decision was taken to disqualify the Manager on the ground that he had disobeyed lawful orders issued to him from time to time. It needs to be mentioned that the grievance of the writ petitioner was redressed well before her retirement with effect from 31/5/2015, consequent to a suspension she was subsequently reinstated on the intervention of the educational authorities who found that there was no material to proceed against her under the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules.

(3.) It would appear that consequent to the order of the Deputy Director that directed the appellant to reinstate the writ petitioner in service, when the appellant did not do so within the time granted by the Deputy Director, a show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Director asking the appellant to show cause as to why he should not be disqualified for noncompliance with the directions of the Deputy Director. Although the appellant preferred a reply pointing out, inter alia, that against the direction of the Deputy Director to reinstate the writ petitioner, he had preferred a statutory revision before the revision authority, and that the same was pending, by a separate communication (Ext.R5(P)), the appellant also indicated to the Deputy Director that he was willing to reinstate the writ petitioner subject to the outcome of the Revision Petition. At any rate, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was reinstated days prior to her retirement with effect from 31/5/2015, and that the writ petitioner has since received all the monetary benefits due to her for her service including her service as a Headmistress and her retirement from the school.