V.K.Vasudevan Namboodiri vs Assistant Educational Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 9437 Ker

          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 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
                       WA NO. 1248 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2022 IN WP(C) 8721/2022 OF HIGH
                         COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC:

          V.K.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI
          AGED 69 YEARS
          S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI,
          MANAGER, POOMANGALAM AUP SCHOOL,
          PANNIYOOR.P.O., KANNUR -670 142.

          BY ADVS.
          M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
          BALU TOM
          BONNY BENNY
          GOVIND G. NAIR
          BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

    1     ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          TALIPARAMBA NORTH, KANNUR-670 141.
    2     VIJAYAN.K.D.,
          S/O. DAMODARAN,
          ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          TALIPARAMBA NORTH, KANNUR - 670 141
          RESIDING AT KOCHUKUNNEL HOUSE,
          UDAYAGIRI.P.O., ALAKKODE,
          KANNUR-670571.
    3     DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670 141.
    4     M.P.MADHUSOODHANAN,
          AGED 41 YEARS
          S/O.KUNHIKANNAN,
          RESIDING AT MEETHALE PURAYIL,
 W.A.No.1248 of 2022
                                    2

              NEAR KARUVANCHAL POST OFFICE,
              P.O.KARUVANCHAL,
              KANNUR - 670 571.
              R1 AND R3- SMT.B.VINITHA SR.GP
              R4 - SRI. K.N ABHILASH
      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.1248 of 2022
                                               3




                   P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
                          ------------------------------------------
                            Writ Appeal No. 1248 of 2022
                     -----------------------------------------------------
                      Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022

                                    JUDGMENT

C.S.Sudha, J.

This writ appeal is against the judgment dated 03/08/2022 in W.P.(C)

No.8721/2022. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondents herein, the

respondents in the writ petition. The parties and the documents will be referred to as

described in the writ petition.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the approved Manager of

Poomangalam AUP School, under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Educational

Officer, Taliparamba North, Kannur District. The petitioner has been the Manager of

the school since 2015 and he continued to be so till 2021. When his term as Manager

expired, he submitted an application before the first respondent, namely, the

Assistant Educational Officer, (the AEO) for approving his appointment as Manager

of the school. The first respondent without notice and without hearing the petitioner,

appointed the 4th respondent as the Manager of the School. Hence the petitioner W.A.No.1248 of 2022

challenged the said order in W.P.(C) No.29771/2021. This Court, as per Ext.P1

judgment dated 31/01/2022, set aside the order of the 1st respondent and directed him

to pass orders on the application of the petitioner after hearing the petitioner as well

as the 4th respondent.

2.1 Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, Ext.P2 notice was issued by the 1st

respondent informing that hearing would be conducted on 10/03/2022 at 11:00 a.m

and directed the petitioner to produce certain documents. Ext.P2 notice was

addressed to both the petitioner as well as the 4 th respondent. On 10/03/2022, when

the petitioner along with his counsel appeared before the 1 st respondent, (the 1st

respondent has been impleaded in his personal capacity as the 2 nd respondent) they

were informed that though Ext.P2 notice had been issued to the 4 th respondent also, a

separate notice thereafter has been given to him with a different date and time for

hearing and that the latter would be heard separately. This was objected to by the

counsel for the petitioner, to which the 1st respondent responded that as per Ext.P1,

the direction is only to hear both the parties and that there was no direction relating to

the mode or manner in which the hearing was to be conducted. The course adopted

by the 1st respondent in fixing different dates for hearing the parties cannot be

justified. Though the petitioner's counsel had requested the 1 st respondent to provide

him a copy of the application that had been submitted by the 4 th respondent claiming

to be the Manager of the school, the request was not acceded to. Not only did the 1 st W.A.No.1248 of 2022

respondent not permit the counsel for the petitioner to make his submissions, but also

kept shouting at the counsel and without checking or examining the documents

produced by the petitioner, expressed the opinion that they are forged and that it is

the 4th respondent who is the rightful claimant to the post of Manager. According to

the petitioner, the 1st respondent was in fact arguing for and on behalf of the 4 th

respondent. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to rebut the contents or to

examine or verify the documents produced by the 4 th respondent. The conduct of the

1st respondent showed clear bias on his part, which is against the principles of natural

justice. As the petitioner does not expect to get a fair hearing from the 1 st respondent,

the writ petition was moved seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st respondent

that the hearing pursuant to Ext.P2 notice be conducted by another Assistant

Educational Officer within the jurisdiction of the District Educational Officer.

2.2 The 4th respondent has filed counter affidavit in which he contends that

the Poomangalam AUP School was established in the year 1936 by his father M.P.

Kunhikannan, a freedom fighter. After the demise of Kunhikannan, his wife

P.P.Lakshmi was appointed as the Manager. Thereafter, as per sale deeds of the year

1986, 1992 and 2002, the property where the school is situated was transferred in the

name of the 4th respondent. Later a Trust under the name, Malanadu Educational

and Charitable Trust was formed by the fourth respondent in the year 2005 as per

Exts.R4(1) and R4(2) deeds. E.N.Chandran; M.V.Rathnavalli; E.Narayanan and the W.A.No.1248 of 2022

fourth respondent are the members of the said Trust. The property in which the

school is situated has also been transferred in the name of the Trust. The Education

Department has approved the transfer in favour of the Trust. As per the above Trust

deeds, a decision by 2/3 majority of the Board is necessary for induction of a new

member. Such a decision has not been taken in the case of the petitioner and

therefore, the petitioner has no role involvement in the Trust formed as aforesaid.

2.3 The fourth respondent had also submitted an application to approve his

appointment as the Manager of the School. The first respondent directed the writ

petitioner to produce certain documents for substantiating his claim to the post of

Manager. However the said documents were never produced by the petitioner. The

petitioner also did not produce any document(s) to show that he is a member of the

Trust. In such circumstances, the first respondent allowed the application moved by

the fourth respondent and approved his appointment as the Manager of the School,

contends the fourth respondent.

3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment, held that the

materials shown by the petitioner are not sufficient to substantiate the allegation of

bias attributed to the first respondent and hence the writ petition was disposed of

directing the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent to appear before the first

respondent on 18/08/2022 at 11 a.m. and the first respondent in turn has been

directed to dispose of the matter after hearing both sides, by adverting to the W.A.No.1248 of 2022

contentions advanced by either side and to pass a reasoned order. Aggrieved, the

petitioner has come up in appeal.

4. Heard Adv.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior counsel for the

appellant-petitioner; Ms.B.Vinitha, the learned Senior Government Pleader and

Adv.K.Abhilash, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

5. A predisposition to decide for or against one party, without proper

regard to the true merits of the dispute is bias. There must be reasonable

apprehension of that predisposition, which apprehension must be based on cogent

materials. The test for bias is whether a reasonable intelligent man, fully apprised of

all the circumstances, would feel a serious apprehension of bias. (Secretary of

Government v. Munuswamy, 1989 KHC 236). There must be reasonable evidence

to satisfy that there was a real likelihood of bias. Vague suspicions of whimsical,

capricious and unreasonable people should not be made the standard to regulate

normal human conduct (International Authority of India v. K. D. Bali (1988) 2

SCC 360).

6. The first respondent, AEO, has been impleaded in his personal capacity

as the second respondent. Though notice was issued to the second respondent in the

writ petition, the writ petition was disposed of before serving notice on him. The

learned Government Pleader accepted notice and appeared for the first and fourth

respondents only. Since the writ petition was disposed of before serving notice on W.A.No.1248 of 2022

the second respondent, that is, the AEO in his personal capacity and as serious

allegation of bias has been raised against the AEO, we issued notice to the officer in

his personal capacity by special messenger in this appeal. The second respondent

refused to accept the notice. Though the second respondent, namely, Vijayan K.D;

the Assistant Educational Officer, has been given opportunity to answer the

allegations of bias raised against him, he has chosen not to appear before this Court

and dispute or controvert the allegations raised against him. That being the

position, it can only be concluded that the second respondent has nothing to say

regarding the allegations raised against him. Hence the allegation of bias raised by

the petitioner stands substantiated or probabilised.

7. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned senior

Government Pleader that the second respondent is under orders of transfer. On

behalf of the fourth respondent it was submitted that he has no faith or confidence in

the Officer who is to take charge in the place of the second respondent and so

hearing may be directed to be conducted by the second respondent himself in his

capacity as AEO, Thalipparambu, North Kannur. On the other hand, it was submitted

by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the matter may be directed to be

heard by any Officer other than the second respondent in his capacity as AEO. In

these circumstances we direct compliance of the directions in Ext.P1 judgment by an

AEO in the District other than the second respondent in his capacity as AEO or the W.A.No.1248 of 2022

Officer who is to take charge or who has taken charge in the place of the first

respondent. The District Educational Officer shall nominate the AEO who has to

comply with the direction contained in Ext.P1 judgment.

The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Sd/-

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.SUDHA JUDGE jms/25.08