1. Statutory revision petition under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A Kerala Educational Rules rejected by government order—petitioner aggrieved seeking quashing of order. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 65491
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Gopinath P, J
Anwar Sadath E – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33388 OF 2026
Important Points
A statutory revision order passed by the Government must be expressed in the name of the Governor and must be a reasoned order that considers the contentions raised by the petitioner.
Subject
Education Law - Statutory Revision
Act Referred
Kerala Educational Rules, 1959: R.92
Headnote
(A) Administrative Law - Statutory Revision - Order not expressed in the name of the Governor - An order passed by the Government on a statutory revision petition must be expressed in the name of the Governor of Kerala. (Para 5)
(B) Natural Justice - Reasoned Order - Cryptic order - An order that does not demonstrate consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner is unsustainable. (Para 2, 5)
Issues: Whether the order passed on a statutory revision petition is valid if it is not expressed in the name of the Governor and is cryptic in nature.
(B) Natural Justice - Reasoned Order - Cryptic order - An order that does not demonstrate consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner is unsustainable. (Para 2, 5)
Issues: Whether the order passed on a statutory revision petition is valid if it is not expressed in the name of the Governor and is cryptic in nature.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Augustine Joseph, Tony Augustine, Arjun Remanan
For the Respondents: Maya Chandran
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Augustine Joseph, Tony Augustine, Arjun Remanan
For the Respondents: Maya Chandran
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends order not expressed in Governor's name and is cryptic without considering contentions; government pleader sought time for instructions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Order lacks indication of consideration of contentions and must be expressed in Governor's name as revisional authority is Government, citing Full Bench precedent. (Para 5 )
4. Government order on statutory revision must be expressed in Governor's name and must demonstrate consideration of contentions raised by petitioner. (Para 5 )
5. Quashed order; directed fresh orders on revision after hearing parties within three months, without expressing opinion on merits. (Para 5 )
6. Must an order passed by the Government on a statutory revision petition be expressed in the name of the Governor?
Yes, where the revisional authority is the Government of Kerala, the order must be expressed in the name of the Governor, not merely by an Under Secretary. (Para 5 )
7. Does a revisional order need to demonstrate consideration of the petitioner's contentions?
Yes, the order must indicate that the revisional authority considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in detail; a cryptic order without such indication is invalid. (Para 5 )
OTHER PRESENT: SMT. MAYA CHANDRAN (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the Government rejecting a statutory revision petition filed in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 92 of the Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Educational Rules, 1959 .
2. Sri. Augustine Joseph K.F, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside on a short ground. It is stated that Ext.P4 is not expressed in the name of the Governor of Kerala. It is submitted that since Ext.P4 is an order passed on a statutory revision petition and since the revisional authority is the Government of Kerala, the order ought to have been expressed in the name of the Governor of Kerala. Further it is pointed out that Ext.P4 is a cryptic order and it does not appear from Ext.P4 that the contentions raised by the petitioner had been considered by the revisional authority before the order was issued.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. The learned Government Pleader seeks further time to get instructions. However, since I am convinced that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the grounds referred to above, I am of the opinion that this matter need not be adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 does not indicate that the revisional authority had considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in detail before passing the order further. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in contending that Ext.P4 ought to have been expressed in the name of the Governor of Kerala as the revisional authority is the Government of Kerala and not the Under Secretary in the General Educational Department. [See the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sudheer T. vs. M.V. Susheela and others (2009 (3) KHC 991)].
Therefore, without going to the merits of the decision in Ext.P4, I quash Ext.P4 and direct that fresh orders shall be passed by the 1st respondent on the revision petition upon which Ext.P4 order was passed, after affording a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Manager of the school. Fresh orders shall be passed by the 1st respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, taking note of all the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter and it will be open to the revisional authority to take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law.
