Kerala High Court
V.K.Vasudevan Namboodiri vs Director Of General Education on 5 June, 2024
WP(C) No.18659/2024 1 / 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
Wednesday, the 5th day of June 2024 / 15th Jyaishta, 1946
IA.NO.1/2024 IN WP(C) NO. 18659 OF 2024(F)
APPLICANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
M.P.MADHUSOODHANAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, RESIDING AT
MEETHALE PURAYIL, NEAR KARUVANCHAL POST OFFICE, P.O.KARUVANCHAL,
KANNUR., PIN - 670571
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 1 TO 4 & 6:
1. V.K.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 70 YEARS,S/O NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI,
MANAGER, POOMANGALAM AUP SCHOOL, PANNIYOOR.P.O., KANNUR., PIN -
670142
2. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL
EDUCATION , JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER , OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER,TALIPARAMBA NORTH, KANNUR, PIN - 670141
4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER TALIPARAMBA SOUTH OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,TALIPARAMBA SOUTH, KANNUR, PIN -
670602
5. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ,OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL
OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670141
6. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LID&EW SECTION, OFFICE OF THE KURUMATHUR GRAMA
PANCYAYAT,KURUMATHUR P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670142
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to vacate the interim
order dated 24.05.2024 in the above Writ Petition.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments
of M/S.KALEESWARAM RAJ & APARNA NARAYAN MENON, Advocates for Petitioner 1
in I.A./Respondent 5 in WP(C) and of SRI.RAMESH CHANDER (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
along with M/S.BEJOY JOSEPH P.J., M.VIJAYAKUMAR, GOVIND G.NAIR, BONNY
BENNY & BALU TOM, Advocates for respondent 1 in I.A./Petitioner in WP(C),
the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.18659/2024 2 / 11
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -
I.A No. 1 of 2024
in
W.P(C) No. 18659 of 2024
---------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2024
ORDER
This is an application submitted under Article 226(3) of the
Constitution of India to vacate the interim order passed by this
Court on 24.05.2024. The interim order passed by this Court
reads as follows:
"Admit.
The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents
1 to 4. Issue urgent notice by speed post to the respondents 5
and 6.
There shall be an interim order permitting the petitioner to
continue as the Manager for all administrative functions including
the steps to be taken for the purpose of maintenance and
obtaining fitness certificate of the school. However, this would not
enable the petitioner to make any appointment without obtaining
prior permission from this court in this regard."
2. This application was submitted by the 5th respondent,
and a detailed counter affidavit was also submitted in response to
the averments contained in the writ petition. (The parties are
referred to in this order on the basis of their ranks in the writ
petition)
3. The basic issue involved in this writ petition pertains to
I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.C No. 18659 of 2024
the management of a school, i.e., Poomangalam AUP school. From
the materials placed on record, it is evident that the said school is
being conducted by Malanad Educational and Charitable Trust and
Sri. E.N Chandran, who was the Chairman of the said trust, was
the Manager initially appointed under the provisions of the KER.
The petitioner herein was appointed as the Manager at a later
point of time and his appointment was approved as per Ext.P1
dated 10.12.2015. Later in the year 2018, when the question of
extension of approval of the petitioner as the Manager came, an
objection was submitted by the 5 th respondent herein on the
ground that the documents submitted by the petitioner for
appointing him as the Manager and the resignation of Mr E.N
Chandran from the managership were forged. However, overruling
the objections raised by the petitioner, Exts.P3 and P4 orders were
issued granting extension of appointment of the petitioner as the
Manager for a further period of 3 years. The said orders were not
challenged.
4. Again, subsequently, when the question of extension of
tenure of the Manager arose in the year 2021, the 5th respondent
raised a similar objection, and it culminated in Ext.P6 wherein, the
claim of the petitioner was rejected, and the 5 th respondent was
appointed as the Manager. The same was challenged before this
I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.C No. 18659 of 2024
Court by filing WP(C) No.29771/2021 which resulted in Ext.P7
judgment by which Ext.P6 was set aside on the reason that no
proper opportunity for hearing was granted to the petitioner
therein. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be reconsidered
by the 2nd respondent. It was also ordered that, till a decision is
taken thereon, the interim order passed by this Court when the
said writ petition was admitted permitting the petitioner to
continue as the Manager, was directed to be in operation. Again,
certain disputes arose concerning the proprietary of the hearing
conducted by the 2nd respondent, which was ultimately settled by
a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P9 judgment, by which
the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent,
instead of the 2nd respondent. On the basis of the same, Ext.P13
order was passed by the 3rd respondent, wherein the finding was
that, for resolving the dispute, the veracity of the documents
submitted by the petitioner has to be verified by conducting a
proper inquiry by a competent agency.
5. Again, the said order was challenged by the petitioner
by filing WP(C) No.26790/2023 and it resulted in Ext.P14 order, by
which Ext P13 was set aside. Thereafter the matter was again
directed to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent and it ultimately
resulted in Ext.P15 order, in which the same view as adopted in
I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.C No. 18659 of 2024
Ext.P13 was taken. Again, the matter was taken up in appeal
before the 1st respondent. After hearing all the parties concerned
Ext.P16 order was passed by the 1st respondent, directing that the
matter relating to the veracity of the documents submitted by the
petitioner has to be conducted by the Vigilance Cell of the
Department. Challenging Ext.P16, the petitioner has submitted
this writ petition and the interim order was passed.
6. The interim order is sought to be vacated by the 5th
respondent mainly on the ground that he is one of the members of
the trust on the basis of which the education agency was formed.
The further contention is that the documents on the basis of which
the appointment of the petitioner was made were bogus. It was
also contended that by virtue of Rule 2 of Chapter III of KER, as a
corporate agency is managing the school, it can only function with
an approved constitution/by-laws. According to the learned
counsel for the 5th respondent, the petitioner failed to produce any
constitution/bylaws which govern the educational agency. On the
other hand, the 5th respondent produced Ext. R5(a), wherein he
was one of the trust members. Therefore it was contended that,
there is no prima facie case for the petitioner. It was
also contended that the school was established by the father
of the 5th respondent, who was a freedom fighter, and as
I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.C No. 18659 of 2024
far as the petitioner is concerned, he is a third person who has
nothing to do with the affairs of the school. His entry into the
management of the school was solely based on the documents
which were falsely created, contends the learned counsel for the
5th respondent.
7. On carefully going through the various conventions
raised from either side, I am of the view that this is a matter that
requires deeper inquiry after elaborately considering all the
materials. However as of now, this court is only on the question
whether the interim order now passed by this Court is to be
continued or not. When considering the aforesaid question, the
crucial aspect which is relevant is the fact that, as per Exts.P1 and
P4 orders, the appointment of the petitioner as the Manager was
approved by the statutory authorities concerned and he continued
as such, for the period from 2015 - 2021. In Exts.P3 and P4
orders, the extension was granted to the petitioner, overlooking
the objection raised by the 5th respondent herein, and the said
objections are the same objections that are now being raised.
Admittedly, none of the orders approving the appointment of the
petitioner as the Manager till 2021 were challenged by the 5 th
respondent except that he raised an objection before the 2 nd
respondent when the extension of the appointment was sought in
I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.C No. 18659 of 2024
the year 2018. Moreover, even though the claim for approval of
the appointment of the petitioner as the Manager was declined in
the year 2021 and the 5th respondent was appointed as the
Manager as evidenced by Ext.P6, the same was set aside by this
Court as per Ext.P7 judgment directing the 3rd respondent to
reconsider the same. The crucial aspect is that, in the said
judgment, the petitioner was permitted to continue as manager on
the basis of the interim order initially passed in the writ petition on
21.12.2021 at the time of admission. Of course, the said interim
order cannot be treated as in operation after passing the orders on
the basis of Ext.P7, but the fact remains that the ultimate decision
which was sought to be taken as directed in Ext.P7 judgment has
not been so far taken. Therefore, when considering the question of
balance of convenience and prima facie case to continue the
interim order already passed by this Court, I am of the view that
the said fact is having some crucial importance.
8. Moreover, as far as the claim of the petitioner and the
claim of the 5th respondent to appoint him as the Manager are
concerned, so far, no orders passed by the statutory authorities
are in existence. Of course, even though Ext.P6 order was passed
directing the appointment of the 5th respondent, the same stands
set aside as per Ext.P7. In any of the subsequent orders passed
I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.C No. 18659 of 2024
by the statutory authorities, namely 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents,
even though the claims made by the petitioner, as well as the 5th
respondent, were not accepted, no alternate arrangement for
entrusting the management with any other person, was also
passed even in the impugned order. Of course, an order was
indeed passed to entrust the management with the AEO, but the
same was also set aside by this Court as per Ext.P14.
9. Therefore, it was the petitioner who was entrusted with
the management of the school with the approval of the authorities
concerned for a considerable period, and certainly, the same will
give him some advantage as far as the interim order is concerned.
The entire issue is to be decided on the basis of the genuineness
of the documents submitted by the petitioner, which enabled him
to claim for appointment as the manager, and the same is yet to
be decided by a competent authority/agency. Therefore, so long
as the same is not found to be bogus, it is not fair to assume that
the petitioner does not have any competence to act as the
manager, at least for an interim arrangement.
10. Moreover, in the interim order passed by this court on
24.05.2024, this court only permitted the petitioner to act as the
Manager for administrative purposes alone, and he was not
permitted to make any appointment without obtaining prior
I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.C No. 18659 of 2024
permission from this Court.
11. Therefore, after considering the respective claims made
by both the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and taking
note of the advantages of the petitioner as referred to above, I do
not find any reason to vacate the interim order passed by this
Court. However, I intend to clarify and reiterate that, the
permission granted to the petitioner to act as the Manager is
solely for administrative purposes and it will not include any policy
decision as far as the management of the school is concerned. It is
also reiterated that this will not enable the petitioner to make any
appointments without obtaining prior permission.
12. Another aspect highlighted by the learned counsel for
the 5th respondent is that as per Ext.P16 order, which is impugned
in this writ petition, an inquiry is sought to be initiated by the
Vigilance Section of the Department of Education and the
apprehension of the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent is that,
the pendency of this writ petition and the interim order passed
may prevent the authorities from conducting a fair inquiry in this
matter. As far as the said prayer is concerned, I find some force.
This is particularly because the essential issue to be decided is the
genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner, and
therefore, an inquiry in this regard has to be conducted by some
I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.C No. 18659 of 2024
competent authority. Even though the learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that, the Vigilance section of the Education
Department does not have any competence to conduct an inquiry,
this is also a matter to be decided at the time of final hearing. In
such circumstances, it is clarified that the inquiry contemplated in
Ext.P16 has to go on, and a report based on the same shall be
submitted before this Court for further orders.
With the above modifications, the interim order passed by
this Court shall continue in force. The inquiry in this regard has to
be conducted by the authorities concerned untrammelled by any
of the observations made in this order. It is further clarified that
the permission granted to the petitioner to act as a Manager will
not create any equity in his favour when the issue is finally
decided. Every endeavour shall be made to complete the inquiry
and to submit a report before this court within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
rpk
05-06-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18659/2024
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KDIS/C/4090/2015 DATED
10.12.2015.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 31.07.2018.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.1257/2018KDIS DATED
20.04.2019 OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D/3018/2021 DATED 13.12.2021
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 29771/2021 DATED
31.01.2022.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1248/2022 DATED
25.08.2022.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. AEOTPS/339/2023
DATED 22.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC
NO. 26790/2023 DATED 18.09.2023
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AEOTPS/722/2023 DATED
15.11.2023 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G 2/17264/2023/D.G.E. DATED
22.04.2024 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit R5(a) True copy of the order No.B3/25114/2006/ADIS dated
22.12.2006 bye-law of Malabar Educational Trust.
05-06-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
