IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1944
WA NO. 715 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.05.2022 IN WP(C) 9044/2022
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
* K V SYED MOHAMMED (DIED),
KALLIVALAPPIL, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD - 679 634
REPRESENTED BY (POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M.T.UMMER) RESIDING AT MOORKKATHAZHATHU VEEDU,
AALOOR, P.O.PATTITHARA, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD -
679 534
*(THE DEATH OF THE APPELLANT IS RECORDED VIDE
ORDER DATED 14.07.2022 IN VIEW OF THE MEMO
RECEIVED IN W.A.NO.715/2022)
ADV.M.R.SABU
ADV.LAKSHMI RAMADAS
ADV.APARNA RAJAN
ADV.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001
3 M.KRISHNADAS,
S/O.LATE KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR,
MELEPPURATH HOUSE, P.O.MEZHATHUR, THRITHALA
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 334
ADV R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
ADV.P.C.SASIDHARAN
ADV.B.VINITHA SR GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2022, ALONG WITH WA.716/2022 AND WA.738/2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. Nos.715 of 2022
& con. cases -: 2 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1944
WA NO. 716 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.05.2022 IN WP(C) 25279/2021
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
*1 K.V.SYED MOHAMMED, (DIED)
KALLIVALAPPIL, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD - 679 634
(REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.T.UMMER)
RESIDING AT MOORKKATHAZHATHU VEEDU, AALOOR,
P.O.PATTITHARA, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD - 679 534.
*(THE DEATH OF THE 1ST APPELLANT IS RECORDED
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2022 IN VIEW OF THE
MEMOS RECEIVED IN WA NOS.715/2022 & 738/2022.)
2 SHARAFFUDHEEN,
S/O.LATE K.V.MUHAMMED, KALLIVALAPPIL HOUSE,
THRITHALA, PALAKKAD - 679 534.
3 M.T.UMMER,
MOORKKATHAZHATHU VEEDU, AALOOR, P.O.PATTITHARA,
THRITHALA, PALAKKAD - 679 534.
4 NASERA K.V.,
D/O.K.V.SAYED MUHAMMED, KALLIVALAPPIL HOUSE,
THRITHALA, PALAKKAD - 679 534.
5 SYED ASHRAFF,
S/O.S.S.HUSSAIN, NEEDOM,
THRITHALA, PALAKKAD - 679 534.
BY ADVS.
P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
M.R.SABU
LAKSHMI RAMADAS
APARNA RAJAN
SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
W.A. Nos.715 of 2022
& con. cases -: 3 :-
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.
2 M.SUKUMARAN,
CHANDRIKA SADAN, MEZHATHOOR, THRITHALA,
PALAKKAD - 679 634.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD - 679 001.
5 THRITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY,
THRITHALA, PALAKKAD - 679 534, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRESIDENT.
ADV R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
ADV.P.C.SASIDHARAN
ADV.B.VINITHA SR GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2022, ALONG WITH WA.715/2022 AND 738/2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. Nos.715 of 2022
& con. cases -: 4 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1944
WA NO. 738 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.05.2022 IN WP(C) 13578/2022
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
M.KRISHNADAS,
AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, TREASURER,
TRITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, RESIDING AT
MELEPPURATH HOUSE, MEZHATHUR P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679 534.
BY ADVS.
R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
ATHIRA A.MENON
AMAL S KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 001.
W.A. Nos.715 of 2022
& con. cases -: 5 :-
*4 K.V. SAYED MOHAMMED, (DIED ON 10.07.2022)
KALLIVALAPPIL, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-
679 634, REP. BY (POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.T.
UMMER), RESIDING AT MOORKKATHAZHATHU HOUSE,
AALOOR P.O, PATTITHARA, THRITHALA,
PALAKKAD 679 534.
*(THE DEATH OF R4 IS RECORDED VIDE ORDER DATED
14.7.2022 IN VIEW OF THE MEMO RECEIVED IN WA NO
738/2022)
ADV.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN SR.
ADV.B.VINITHA SR GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2022, ALONG WITH WA.715/2022 AND 716/2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. Nos.715 of 2022
& con. cases -: 6 :-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal Nos.715, 716 & 738 of 2022
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2022
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
The issues involved in these writ appeals are intrinsically connected and they are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.25279 of 2021 from which W.A.No.716 of 2022 arises.
2. Among the appeals, W.A.No.716 of 2022 is preferred against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.25279 of 2021, W.A.No.715 of 2022 is preferred against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9044 of 2022 and W.A.No.738 of 2022 is preferred against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.13578 of 2022. In all the appeals, the appellants were the petitioners in the respective writ petitions.
3. The dispute pertains to the affairs of "Thrithala W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 7 :- Education Society" (the Society), a Society registered and functioning under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which is running an aided School namely, "Dr.K.B. Menon Memorial Higher Secondary School" (the School).
4. The Society is functioning since 1953. The earliest among the documents pertaining to the Society over which there is no dispute is the attested copy of the bye-laws of the Society as amended on 18.12.1972. The members of the Society as shown in the bye-laws are (1) Sri.M.P.Narayanan Bhattathiripad, (2) Sri.K.V.Syed Mohammed, (3) Sri.M.P.Vasudevan Bhattathiripad, (4) Sri.E.M.Kesavan Nair, (5) Sri.M.G.Gopalan and (6) Sri.K.P.Narayana Menon. Among them, Sri.K.V.Syed Mohammed is the first petitioner in the writ petition. It is not disputed that in course of time, one Sri.Ponneri Abdu Rahiman and two others were inducted as members of the Society. Most of the above referred members have passed away.
5. During 2006, Sri.Ponneri Abdu Rahiman staked a claim that he has been duly appointed as the Manager of the School and preferred an application before the Educational Officer for approval of his managership. The first petitioner who W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 8 :- was stated to be the President of the Society then, objected to the request of Sri.Ponneri Abdu Rahiman on the ground that the claim is not genuine. The Educational Officer overruled the objection of the first petitioner and approved the appointment of Sri.Ponneri Abdu Rahiman as the Manager. The first petitioner challenged the order passed by the Educational Officer before the Director of Public Instruction, and in terms of Ext.P3 order, the Director of Public Instruction set aside the order of the Educational Officer and entrusted the managership with the District Educational Officer. Ext.P3 order was challenged by Sri.Ponneri Abdu Rahiman before this Court in W.P.(C) No.22910 of 2012. This Court set aside Ext.P3 order and directed the parties to resolve the disputes by recourse to a civil suit. The first petitioner challenged the decision in the above writ petition in W.A.No.741 of 2013. During the pendency of the said writ appeal, the second respondent staked a claim before the Educational Officer that he has been duly appointed as the Manager. The Educational Officer accepted the claim of the second respondent and approved his managership. The first petitioner challenged the order approving the appointment of the second respondent as the Manager in appeal before the W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 9 :- Director of General Education (the Director), the re-designated office of the Director of Public Instruction. Similarly, Sri.Ponneri Abdu Rahiman as well challenged the order approving the appointment of the second respondent as the Manager in appeal. In the light of the said development, this Court closed W.A.No.741 of 2013 ordering the Director to consider and pass orders on the appeals referred to above, untrammelled by the views expressed in the judgment impugned in the writ appeal. Ext.P5 is the judgment in W.A.No.741 of 2013.
6. Although the appeals were taken up and heard pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, the Director did not interfere with the decision of the Educational Officer. The first petitioner, in the circumstances, challenged the decision of the Director in revision before the Government and the Government affirmed the same in terms of Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7 order was challenged by the first petitioner as also Sri.Ponneri Abdu Rahiman before this Court in two separate writ petitions. This Court set aside Ext.P7 order and directed the Government to reconsider the revision petition. The Government thereupon reconsidered the revision petition and passed Ext.P9 order cancelling the decision of the Educational Officer approving the appointment W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 10 :- of the second respondent as the Manager. As per Ext.P9 order, the Government also directed the alive members of the Society namely, Sri.Ponneri Abdu Rahiman, Sri.M.G.Gopalan, Sri.K.V.Syed Mohammed and Sri.M.Abu to induct new members in the Society and appoint a new Manager. In terms of Ext.P9 order, the Government permitted Sri.Ponneri Abdu Rahiman to function as the Manager for a period of one year.
7. It is stated by the petitioners that pursuant to Ext.P9 order, a meeting of the Society was convened and petitioners 2 to 4 were inducted as members of the Society. While so, on the basis of a representation submitted by the second respondent, the Government recalled Ext.P9 order on the ground that the dispute being one of civil nature, the same has to be resolved by a competent civil court. Ext.P11 is the order issued by the Government in this regard. As per Ext.P11, the Government appointed the Educational Officer as the Manager of the School.
8. In the meanwhile, the second respondent and few others challenged Ext.P9 order before this Court. When Ext.P9 order was recalled by the Government as per Ext.P11 order, the first petitioner challenged the same before this W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 11 :- Court. The writ petitions challenging Exts.P9 and P11 orders have been taken up, heard and disposed of together as per Ext.P12 judgment with the following directions:
"(a) The Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad, will hear all the petitioners and every other person who claims to be the members of the "Thrithala Education Society" and will decide as to who among them are its members and who have been inducted validly into it as per the approved Byelaws. For this purpose, I direct the petitioners and every other person who is staking such a claim, to mark appearance before the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad, at 11 a.m. on 10.03.2021, along with all the documents that they may use in substantiation of their claim in their possession. The Deputy Director will, thereupon, either hear them on that day or adjourn the matter for hearing to a convenient date and take a decision as to who among them are validly inducted members of the Society, after assessing all the documents, including those which he may call for from the Society for this purpose. This exercise shall be completed by the Deputy Director not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(b) On the Deputy Director completing the afore exercise and preparing a list of those persons whom he identifies and recognizes as the members of the "Thrithala Education Society", he shall arrange for an election to be conducted among them for the appointment of office bearers of the Society, including the Manager of the School; and this shall be done within a period of three months thereafter.
(c) On a person being validly selected as the Manager of the School in terms of the afore directions, the proposal for his/her approval shall be forwarded by the present Manager -
W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 12 :- the D.E.O., Ottappalam, to the Deputy Director, who shall thereupon, consider the same and issue appropriate orders on it without any avoidable delay."
As noted, the view taken by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment is that it is for the authorities under the Kerala Education Rules (the Rules) framed under the Kerala Education Act (the Act) to adjudicate the dispute as to who among them are the real members of the Society. As recorded in Ext.P12 judgment, the same is one rendered as agreed to by all parties concerned in the best interests of the School.
9. Pursuant to Ext.P12 judgment, the jurisdictional Deputy Director of Education (the Deputy
Director) passed Ext.P14 order stating that he is unable to resolve the dispute in terms of the judgment for want of sufficient materials, and relegated the parties to the civil court for adjudication of the same. In Ext.P14 order, the Deputy Director has clarified that if appropriate arrangements are made by the Society for management of the School, further action will be taken for compliance of the directions contained in Ext.P12 judgment. As per Ext.P14 order, it was directed that until then, the Educational Officer will function as the Manager of the School. Ext.P14 order of the Deputy Director is under W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 13 :- challenge in W.P.(C) No.25279 of 2021.
10. One M.Krishnadas challenged Ext.P14 order in revision before the Government and later approached this Court seeking a direction to the Government to consider the revision petition. In terms of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24110 of 2021, this Court directed the Government to dispose of the revision petition. The first petitioner, thereupon filed R.P.No.874 of 2021 seeking review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24110 of 2021 mainly contending that the revision petition directed to be disposed of is not maintainable. The said review petition was disposed of by this Court directing the Government to consider the question of maintainability of the revision petition also while complying with the directions contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24110 of 2021. Pursuant to the directions aforesaid, the Government passed an order on 03.03.2022 holding that the revision petition is not maintainable. Ext.P11 in W.P.(C) No.9044 of 2022 is the order passed by the Government in this regard. Despite the fact that the revision petition was found to be not maintainable, the Government disposed of the revision petition as per the said order granting liberty to Sri.M.Krishnadas to challenge Ext.P14 W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 14 :- order in appeal before the Director in terms of Rule 4(3) of Chapter III of the Rules framed under the Act. As per the said order, the Government also enlarged the time prescribed in Rule 4(3) by 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. W.P.(C) No.9044 of 2022 is one instituted by the first petitioner challenging Ext.P11 order in the said case. The case set out by the first petitioner in the said writ petition is that the right of appeal provided for in terms of Rule 4(3) of Chapter III of the Rules being a statutory right, it can be availed only in terms of the statute and since the statute prescribes a time limit of 30 days for availing the said remedy, the Government is incompetent to enlarge the said time limit.
11. W.P.(C) No.13578 of 2022 is the writ petition filed by Sri.M.Krishnadas challenging Ext.P11 order in W.P.(C) No.9044 of 2022. The case set out by him in the said writ petition is that the view taken by the Government in the impugned order that the revision petition filed by him before the Government against Ext.P14 order is not maintainable, is incorrect. As regards the merits of the matter, the case of the petitioner therein is that the Deputy Director ought to have identified the members of the Society based on the documents W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 15 :- made available by the parties and authorities and by calling for the documents from the parties concerned and arranged an election thereupon for the appointment of office bearers of the Society including the Manager, in compliance with the direction contained in Ext.P12 judgment.
12. It is seen that on 20.05.2022, when W.P.(C) No.9044 of 2022 came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the said case pointed out to the court regarding pendency of W.P.(C) Nos.25279 of 2021 and 13578 of 2022 also relating to the same subject matter. The learned Single Judge, in the circumstances, called for the said writ petitions as well and dismissed all the three by the common judgment impugned in these appeals on the same day itself with costs, taking the stand that the matter is one to be adjudicated by the parties in appeal in terms of the statute. The writ appeals are instituted in the above background.
13. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.715 of 2022 and 716 of 2022, the learned counsel for the second respondent in W.A No.715 of 2022, the learned counsel for the appellant in W.A. No.738 of W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 16 :- 2022 and the learned Government Pleader.
14. Although the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.715 and 716 of 2022 and the learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.738 of 2022 made elaborate submissions as to the correctness of Ext.P11 order in W.P.(C) No.13578 of 2022, we consider it unnecessary to delve deep into those submissions since the grievance voiced by Sri.M.Krishnadas in the revision petition preferred by him before the Government which has been disposed of as per the said order, was essentially against Ext.P14 order of the Deputy Director. That being the case, we have decided to examine the correctness of Ext.P14 order on merits in these matters having regard to the background of this litigation. As a matter of fact, in the course of hearing, we have indicated to the learned counsel appearing for Sri.M.Krishnadas the said decision of ours and required him to make submissions against Ext.P14 order on merits and he has, accordingly, made submissions as required by us.
15. The essence of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.715 and 716 of 2022 was that in the light of Ext.P12 judgment, it was W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 17 :- obligatory for the Deputy Director to decide as to who among the parties are the real members of the Society and if the Deputy Director had faced any difficulty in undertaking the said adjudication, he ought to have sought a review of the judgment. The learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.738 of 2022 supported the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.715 and 716 of 2022 on the said limited aspect, pointing out that the issues directed to be adjudicated by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment are issues that could have been adjudicated by the Deputy Director based on documents made available to him by the parties and by calling for the documents from the parties and authorities concerned.
16. The learned counsel for the second respondent in W.A.No.715o f 2022 has made elaborate submissions as to the founder members of the Society as also the reputation of the School. According to him, absolute strangers are now attempting to usurp the management of the Society and the School with oblique motives. In order to substantiate the said case, the learned counsel has pointed out that the first petitioner is aged, ailing and bedridden and is incapable of taking any decision and that the litigations are pursued based W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 18 :- on a power of attorney stated to have been given by him. According to the learned counsel, the power of attorney, on the basis of which the litigations are pursued on behalf of the first petitioner, is a fabricated one.
17. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
18. Before dealing with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to remind ourselves the law as regards the scope of the powers of the authorities under the Act and the Rules to adjudicate disputes relating to the management of aided schools. The provisions of the Act and the Rules show that in the case of corporate managements, the choice and appointment of managers are to be governed by the Rules required to be framed under Rule 2 of Chapter III of the KER. Disputes of the instant nature arise often as regards the management of schools run by corporate educational agencies, and the authorities under the Act and the Rules are empowered to adjudicate such disputes. It is long settled that the decisions of the authorities in this regard are not meant to settle civil rights of the parties. Their decisions are in the nature of summary determination for the sake of W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 19 :- expediency, without awaiting the result of protracted litigations in a competent civil court. There is no doubt that a right to agitate on questions of civil rights in a competent civil court would remain unaffected in spite of the decision by the authorities and they are intended only for the limited purpose of carrying on the functions and fulfilling the obligations under the Act. It does not, and cannot oust the jurisdiction of a competent civil court in matters touching the civil right of parties. In this context, it is apposite to refer to a passage from the decision of this Court in Abdul Rahim v. State of Kerala and Others, 1984 KLT 773. The passage reads thus:
"This Court in the judgment in W. A.Nos.152 & 191 of 1978 stated as follows:
"It was pointed out by this Court that the Kerala Education Act and the Rules left it to the statutory authorities constituted by them to decide the question of the right of management to school to the best of their resources and ability, and that this Court would not be justified, especially in writ proceedings, in directing the parties to fight out their rival claims in a Civil Court and on that ground alone to interfere with the decision arrived at by the statutory authorities. It follows therefore that the course adopted by the learned Judge of setting aside Exts. P20 and P26 on the only ground that in the interests of justice, the parties should fight out their rival claims in a Civil Court, is not justified or proper, and cannot be sustained."
It is doubting the correctness of this decision that our learned W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 20 :- brother Narendran J. by the order dated 12-12-80 referred the matter to a Division Bench. We understand the Division Bench ruling as one laying down that it is for the statutory authorities constituted under the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder, to the best of their resources and ability, to decide the question of the right of management of the school. We do not, however, understand it as one laying down a proposition that such decisions taken by the Educational Authorities would conclude the civil rights of the parties to the properties involved. The decisions of the Educational Authorities are not meant to settle civil rights of the parties to such properties. These decisions are in the nature of summary determination for the sake of expediency, without waiting for the result of a protracted litigation in a civil court. There could be no doubt that the right to agitate on questions of civil rights in a civil court would remain unaffected in spite of the decision by the Educational Authorities for the limited purpose of carrying on the functions and fulfilling the obligations under the Act. It does not, and cannot oust the jurisdiction of the civil court in matters touching the civil rights of the parties. Looked at from this angle, we do not consider it necessary to re- examine the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench in as much as in Ext P9 what the Government did was to pass an order in exercise of powers under R.92 of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R., and that is for the purpose of the Act; not for determining the civil rights of the parties."
As is evident from the extracted passage, Abdul Rahim is a case where the learned Single Judge of this Court doubted the correctness of the proposition of law laid down by a Division Bench and referred the matter to another Division Bench and W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 21 :- this Court understood the doubted decision as one laying down the proposition that it is for the statutory authorities to decide the questions pertaining to right of management of the school to the best of their resources and ability and held that the proposition is in order. In other words, the law on the point is that the disputes relating to the management of schools are to be decided by the authorities to the best of their resources and ability and they cannot abdicate that function on the ground that the dispute is one fit for a competent civil court to adjudicate upon, for the limited purpose of the Act and the Rules is to ensure that there would not be any vacuum in the management of the school [see Dr.Philippose Mar Theophilus v. State of Kerala, 1986 KLJ 1069]. If the authorities abdicate the aforementioned function by relegating the parties to fight out their disputes in civil suits, the obligation to manage the school would then shift to the authorities. It should be kept in mind that the authorities under the Act and the Rules are not established for managing private schools. Private schools are to be managed by the respective educational agencies themselves. The scheme of the Act and the Rules is only that every aided school shall have a manager W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 22 :- responsible for running the school in accordance with the statute and be answerable to the authorities.
19. Having understood the law on the point, let us deal with the arguments. The short question is as to whether Ext.P14 order passed by the Deputy Director is sustainable in law. As noted, on a meticulous perusal of the facts and circumstances, the Government resolved the disputes in terms of Ext.P9 order by directing the living members of the Society namely, Sri.Ponneri Abdu Rahiman, Sri.M.G.Gopalan, Sri.K.V.Syed Mohammed and Sri.M.Abu to induct new members in the Society and appoint a new Manager. It is this decision that was set at naught by the Government themselves in terms of Ext.P11 order on the ground that the dispute being one of civil nature, the same has to be resolved by a competent civil court. It is in the writ petitions instituted challenging Ext.P9 and Ext.P11 orders that this Court rendered Ext.P12 judgment. This Court did not accept, on facts, the view taken by the Government in Ext.P11 order that the dispute is one to be resolved by the parties concerned by recourse to a civil suit. On the other hand, the view taken in the said judgment is that the matter needs to be adjudicated by the authorities. It is W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 23 :- having taken the said view that various directions have been issued by this Court. A close reading of Ext.P14 order passed by the Deputy Director pursuant to Ext.P12 judgment would show that there was no attempt on the part of the Deputy Director to resolve the dispute as was directed by this Court. Instead, the Deputy Director had directed the parties to resolve the dispute themselves. The effect of the order is that until the dispute is resolved, the school will have to be managed by the authorities under the Act and the Rules. As indicated above, the authorities under the Act and the Rules are not intended for managing private schools. In other words, the Deputy Director ought to have complied with the directions contained in Ext.P12 judgment to the best of his resources and ability. Inasmuch as the Deputy Director has not adopted the said course, Ext.P14 order is liable to be set aside as one issued otherwise than in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P12 judgment.
20. As noted, the management of the School is in a stalemate bordering on the last 15 years. Several persons including the educational officers have functioned as managers of the School during this period. This course is not conducive for the well being of the School. It is in the said background, W.A. Nos.715 of 2022 & con. cases -: 24 :- this Court issued elaborate directions in terms of Ext.P12 judgment. Even though it has not been specifically stated in Ext.P12 judgment, the essence of the directions enumerated therein was that the disputes are to be resolved by the Deputy Director to the best of his resources and ability. In the light of Ext.P12 judgment, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the parties have to resolve their disputes by recourse to the statutory remedy available to them by way of an appeal, cannot be accepted.
In the result, the writ appeals are allowed, the impugned judgments are set aside and the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Deputy Director to comply with the directions contained in Ext.P12 judgment in the manner indicated therein to the best of his resources and ability with the available documents, as well as documents that could be called for by him. This shall be done within three months.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.
ds 08.07.2022