LALITHAMMA Vs. MANAGER ARAVUKAD HIGH SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for decision in this writ appeal is whether an appeal preferred by the Manager, Aravukad High School, against Ext. P2 order, refusing to approve the appointment of the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, was preferred in time as required by Chap.14[A] R.8 sub-r.[6] of the Kerala Education Rules. The appeal was not entertained by the educational authorities on the ground that it was out of time. The learned Judge in the writ petition preferred jointly by the Manager and by an aggrieved teacher of the institution, took the view that the appeal had been preferred within time. He therefore allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext. P2 order and directed the authority concerned to deal with the appeal on the merits and to dispose of it in accordance with law. The 3rd respondent in the writ petition has filed this appeal.

(2.) Chap.14[A] R.8 sub-r.[5] and [6] may conveniently be quoted:

(3.) Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 (who were the writ petitioners before the learned Judge) contended that while the view that we take may entail a dismissal of the writ petition, in so far as it relates to the Manager, the writ petition is still maintainable at the instance of the teacher, and his writ petition to quash Ext. P2 order should be beard and disposed of on the merits. We are unable to appreciate or to accept this contention. Chap.14(A) R.8 sub-r.(6) draws no distinction between the right of the Manager to prefer an appeal and of a teacher to do so. The right of appeal is available to both, against the order Ext. P2 which falls within the purview of the Rule. Ext. P3 being such an appeal, both the Manager and the teacher had a right of appeal. The one had exercised it, but not within time and therefore his writ petition to challenge it is not maintainable and cannot be entertained. The other, namely, the teacher, had not at all exercised the statutory remedy of appeal, and without exercising the same, we see no ground bow he can be on a better footing than the former; and how the writ petition at his instance should be heard and disposed of on the merits.