Judgment · High Court

Order

“Government Pleader shall get instructions as to why Ext.P7order has been passed in three sentences whereas the petitioner hasfiled Ext.P5 revision petition with nine specific grounds, which havenot been dealt with in Ext.P7”.

W.P.(C) No. 15679 of 201223.When the matter was taken up today, the learnedGovernment Pleader could not satisfy me that Ext.P7 is an orderas contemplated by Ext.P6 judgment. Ext.P7 reads thus:“The effective staff strength of your school fixed by theDistrict Educational Officer, Pala based on the Higher LevelVerification report of the Deputy Director of Education, Kottayam is 149 and is as per rules. Hence your revisionpetition cannot be considered and is rejected”. Ext.P5 is the revision petition on which Ext.P7 judgment has beenpassed. It runs into seven pages and the petitioner has raisednine specific grounds. It does not require much arguments toconclude that Ext.P7 is a non-speaking order. None of thecontentions of the petitioner had been considered or dealt with inExt.P7. That being so, Ext.P7 clearly violates the principles ofnatural justice. On that ground, Ext.P7 order is quashed. Thefirst respondent is directed to re-consider Ext.P5 revision petitionand pass a fresh order, after affording an opportunity of beingheard to the petitioner, giving reasons for the decision of the W.P.(C) No. 15679 of 20123Government, considering each and every ground raised by thepetitioner in Ext. P5, as expeditiously as possible at any ratewithin a period two months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis judgment. S.SIRIJAGAN, JUDGE.Scl.