P.K. SATHYAN Vs. T.B. BIJISHA, JUNIOR SANSKRIT TEACHER RAKM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, THALAKULATHUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No.36 OF 2018 and ZWA 36 OF 2018: This appeal has been filed by one Rajan, who is stated as the manager of the RAKM Upper Primary school, seeking to challenge the verdict dated 08.08.2017 in R.P.425 of 2017 in W.P(C)No.20092 of 2012 passed by the learned single Judge on 30.11.2016. It is pointed out that the appellant was not a party to the proceedings and hence 'leave' of this Court is sought for to file appeal, by filing I.A.No.36 of 2018.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. On going through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.36 of 2018, seeking for leave, it is seen that the petitioner in the I.A. concedes that his father (P.K. Rarichan), who was arrayed in the party array as the 7th respondent in W.P. (C)No.20092 of 2012 took his last breath on 22.10.2012 (as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner) and pursuant to further steps, the petitioner in I.A. was appointed as the Manager of the School w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to 31.05.2018 as per Annexure A4 dated 08.07.2016 issued by 5th respondent. It is also conceded in the said affidavit that the factum of death of the father was not communicated to the counsel representing the father in the writ petition. As a consequence, it is seen that the final verdict was passed by the learned Single Judge on 30.11.2016, showing the 7th respondent still in the party array, who in fact was not living as on that date. However, coming to the Review Petition filed at the instance of the Headmaster of the School, it cannot be said that the Headmaster might have been ignorant of the factum of death of Shri P.K. Rarichan(7th respondent)[father of the petitioner in I.A.No.36 of 2018]. The said review petition was considered and interference was declined as per order dated 8th August 2017, still showing the 7th respondent as "died" , without impleading the legal heirs/proper manager in the party array. In the said circumstance, this Court finds that absence of non-communication of the factum of death of the father of the petitioner in I.A.No.36 of 2018, (who admittedly was stated as appointed as the Manager by the departmental authorities as per Annexure A4 dated 08.07.2016) cannot be heard to say that he lost chance or opportunity to project the facts and figures before the Court and hence to have his appeal entertained. The leave stands rejected and as a natural consequence, the appeal as well. W.A.No.14 of 2018:

(3.) The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is against the order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P(C)No.20391 of 2017. As per the materials produced in this case, it is seen that the writ petition was admitted by the learned single Judge as per Annexure A1 order dated 20.06.2017, also granting an interim direction to the third respondent to implement Ext.P6 order to the extent it relates to the writ petitioner. Notice was also ordered to the Respondents 3 and 4. The appellant filed I.A.No.11267 of 2017 pointing out the facts and figures and seeking to modify the order, particularly when a positive direction was given to implement Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said I.A. was considered by the learned single Judge as per Annexure A2 order dated 26.07.2017 with the following observations: