Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
MANAGER, AGED 56 YEARS, AM UPS KOORIKUZHI – Appellant
Versus
JINI PAUL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition on procedural grounds. (Para 1) |
| 2. necessity to respect revisional remedies. (Para 2) |
| 3. final order contingent on past decisions. (Para 3) |
SRI.V.VENUGOPAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2026 W.P.(C) No.31148 of 2025 was disposed of directing the competent among the respondents to implement Ext.P17 order dated 30.10.2025 of the Deputy Director of Education. This Court further directed that while passing orders on Ext.P17, the respondents shall take a decision and pay eligible salary to the petitioner. The review petitioner was the 7th respondent in the writ petition. However, no notice was served on the 7th respondent while disposing of the writ petition.
2. The 7th respondent submitted that he had filed a Review Petition against Ext.P17 order and this Court in W.P.(C) No.42011 of 2025 had directed the 1st respondent-
Director General of Education to consider the revision petition filed by the Manager. If the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.31148 of 2025 is implemented,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
