PHILOMINA Vs. BABU VARGHESE
LAWS(KER)-2001-5-9
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on May 25,2001

PHILOMINA Appellant
VERSUS
BABU VARGHESE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BANGALORE CITY COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2012-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPA AUGUSTINE VS. GEETHA ALEX [LAWS(SC)-2008-5-138] [OVERRULED]
O K MANOJ VS. M SINDHU [LAWS(KER)-2006-9-61] [REFERRED TO]
ARAVINDAKSHAN V. M. VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(KER)-2001-12-81] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)All the above cases have come before us on reference by a Division Bench. The question involved in these cases is regarding the interpretation of the Proviso to R.43 of Chap.14A of the Kerala Education Rules. The first decision on this aspect is the decision reported in Babu Varghese v. Manager, 1994 (1) KLT 557 . Against that, W. A. No. 1707 of 1993 was filed. It is without noting that the appeal was pending against the decision in 1994 (1) KLT 557 that the decision in Padminikutty v. D.E.O., Ottappalam, 1996 (1) KLT 397 was rendered. All the above cases were heard together.
(2.)We heard, learned counsel Sri. C. P. Sudhakara Prasad, Sri. L. Gopalakrishnan Poti, Sri. A.K. Chinnan, Smt. Seemanthini, Sri. A.K. Avirah, Sri. P. K. Suresh, Sri. Abraham Vakkanal, Sri. K. A. Abraham, Sri. Julian Xavier, Sri. P. E. Cherian, Sri. G. Gopakumar and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel on both sides argued the matter and a large number of decisions were cited before us. Since W. A. No. 1707 of 1993 is filed against the decision reported in 1994 (1) KLT 557, we are considering that case first.
(3.)This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 1605 of 1988. The judgment in that case is reported in Babu Varghese v. Manager - 1994 (1) KLT 557. Subsequently, a Division Bench consisting of Sreedharan (as he then was) and Koshy, JJ. in Padminikutty v. D.E.O., Ottappalam, 1996 (1) KLT 397 approved the decision in 1994 (1) KLT 557. When the present appeal and connected matters came before another Division Bench consisting of Koshy and Ramachandran, JJ., their Lordships referred the cases to be decided by a Full Bench. It appears that at the time when 1996 (1) KLT 397 was decided, the present appeal and connected cases against the judgment reported in 1994 (1) KLT 557 had been admitted and taken into file, but without noticing that the judgment had been upheld. In the meanwhile, there was a decision by another Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 517 of 1992. There are certain other decisions in the question. Hence, the matter was referred to a Full Bench. It is in the above circumstances that the matter has come before us.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.