Kerala High Court
M.Krishnadas vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2022
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
