Kerala High Court
Shihab Thangal Educational & ... vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:62000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 592 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.33822 OF
2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
P. MUHAMMED SHAFI
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O SEETHI, PANANILATH HOUSE, THOTTINTAKKARA,
P.O.MAMPAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676542.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.RAJENDRAN (SR.)
SRI.SOHAIL MOHAMMED ANSARY
SMT.AMEENA.R
SRI.M.S.MOHAMMED ANSARY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676519.
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NILAMBUR
NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679329.
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:62000
5 K.MUHAMMED ALI,
S/O ALAVI, KAMPURATH HOUSE, THOTTINTAKKARA,
P.O.MAMPAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676542.
6 SHIHAB THANGAL EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST
MAMAPAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY RAHMATHULLAH, MOOCHITHODEN HOUSE,
P.O. MOOTHEDAM, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
679331.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
SMT.A.LOWSY
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.07.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.594/2025, THE COURT ON 18.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:62000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 594 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.30218 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
SHIHAB THANGAL EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.MUHAMMAD MUSTHAFA K.P. AGED
62, MAMPAD P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA - 676 542
S/O MUHAMMEDKUTTY RESIDING AT KOZHIPARAMBAN HOUSE,
MEPPADAM MAMPAD P.O
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
SMT.C.B.ABHINAVA
SMT.M.VISHNUPRIYA
SRI.P.K.SOYUZ
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
O/O THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION JAGATHI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
O/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DOWN HILL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676519.
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:62000
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
O/O THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER WANDOOR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679328.
5 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
O/O THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NILAMBOOR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679328.
6 * ADDL R6) P. MOHAMMED SHAFFI
S/O SEETHI, PANANILATH HOUSE,
THOTTINTAKKARA,P.O.MAMPAD MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
* ( IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2024 IN
IA NO.1/2024 IN WP© 30218/2024 ), PIN - 676542.
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.SOHAIL MOHAMMED ANSARY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.07.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.592/2025, THE COURT ON 18.08.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:62000
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
These appeals are filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958, by the respective petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.33822
of 2023 and 30218 of 2024, challenging the common judgment
dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby
the writ petitions ended in dismissal. For convenience of reference,
the parties to these writ appeals and the documents produced are
referred to in this judgment as they were referred to in the
impugned common judgment of the learned Single Judge as well
as in W.A.No.593 of 2025, unless otherwise stated.
2. According to the appellant in Writ Appeal No.592 of
2025, he is one among the founder Trustees of the Shihab Thangal
Educational and Charitable Trust ('the Trust' in short), which is the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024. The trust was formed with
an objective to establish educational institutions and to provide
educational facilities to the poor children in backward areas.
Ext.P1 is the Trust Deed registered as Document No.788 of 2011
before the Additional SRO, Kozhikode. The Trust purchased the
A.M.U.P. School at Mampad, which is an aided School under the
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:62000
ownership and management of one Smt.Aminakkutty. From
20.04.2013 onwards, the School has been under the ownership,
possession and control of the Trust. Though the appellant, who
was appointed as the Manager as per Ext.P1 Trust Deed, should
have been allowed to function as the Manager of the School, the
former Manager of the School Smt.Aminakkutty was allowed to
continue as the Manager without any right of ownership of the
properties. This arrangement was made because the transfer of
management from Smt.Aminakkutty to the Trust did not have the
necessary approval of the educational authorities as required
under the Rules.
2.1. Smt.Aminakkutty appointed the 5th respondent
Sri.K.Muhammed Ali, as the Manager of the School without any
rights over its properties. By virtue of Ext.P2 order dated
13.08.2018, the appointment of the 5th respondent was approved
by the 4th respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Nilambur.
Against Ext.P2 order, the appellant filed an appeal before the
District Educational Officer. That appeal was dismissed as per the
order dated 21.12.2020 of the District Educational Officer. The
appellant then took up the matter before the Government by filing
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:62000
Ext.P3 revision dated 10.03.2021. During the pendency of Ext.P3,
the 2nd respondent Director of General Education, by his order
dated 10.05.2019, declined the application for transfer of the
School in favour of the Trust on the ground that there were no
approved Bye-Laws for the management of the School. The 5th
respondent, without any authority, thereafter prepared a Bye-Law
and got it approved by the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of
Education, as per Ext.P4 order dated 07.08.2019. Ext.P4 order
was also challenged by the appellant before the Government.
2.2. Since the appellant questioned these unauthorised acts
of the 5th respondent, the appellant was removed from the Trust
without any notice and without assigning any valid reason. The
appellant then filed O.S.No.2 of 2022 before the Sub Court,
Manjeri, challenging the above decision of the Trust to expel him,
and the same is still pending. The application of the 5th respondent
for transfer of management was rejected by the 2nd respondent
the Director of General Education, by Ext.P5 order dated
26.02.2021, stating that the transfer of the School was without
obtaining prior permission of the 2nd respondent.
2.3. Since the 1st respondent did not take up Ext.P3
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:62000
revision, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.10789 of 2021 before this
Court, and as per judgment dated 23.09.2021, this Court directed
the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 within three months.
Pursuant to the above direction, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P6
order dated 05.02.2022 setting aside Ext.P2 order approving the
5th respondent as the Manager and Ext.P4 order approving the
Bye-Laws of the School. As per Ext.P6 order, the Trust was
permitted to submit a fresh application for the transfer of
management of the School, complying with the directions in
Circular No.GEDN-F2/85/2021-GDEN dated 24.11.2021. The 1st
respondent further directed the 4th respondent, Assistant
Educational Officer, to be in charge of the Manager of the School
temporarily, and he had assumed charge as such. With regard to
the internal disputes within the Trust, it was observed that the
same are beyond the powers of the Government and have to be
adjudicated by the appropriate Civil Court.
2.4. The 6th respondent Trust challenged Ext.P6 order
before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.6171 of 2022 and in that writ
petition, Ext.P7 interim order dated 04.04.2022 was passed
staying the operation of Ext.P6 order and permitting the petitioner
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:62000
therein to continue as Manager provisionally subject to the
condition that he shall not make any appointment in the School till
further orders of this Court. Later, by Ext.P8 judgment dated
05.04.2023, that writ petition was disposed of by setting aside
Ext.P6 order and directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the
matter after hearing the appellant also.
2.5. Pursuant to the Ext.P8 judgment, the 1st respondent
issued Ext.P9 order dated 06.07.2023. The 1st respondent
proceeded as if the Bye-Laws of the Trust, which were submitted
by the 5th respondent, had been approved and that the
contentions of the appellant against the same had been rejected
by this Court. The appellant thereafter submitted Ext.P10
representation dated 25.07.2023, before the Government
requesting to recall Ext.P9 order. Since Ext.P10 was not disposed
of by the Government, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.33822 of
2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ
of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order dated 13.08.2018 of the 4th
respondent Assistant Educational Officer and Ext.P9 order dated
06.07.2023 of the 1st respondent. The appellant has also sought
for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:62000
consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 revision dated 10.03.2021 and
Ext.P10 representation dated 25.07.2023 submitted by him,
expeditiously.
3. The 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 filed a
counter affidavit dated 13.11.2023, opposing the reliefs sought in
the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(f)
documents. Paragraphs 3 to 13 of that counter affidavit read thus:
"3. By Exhibit P-9, the Government have issued orders so as to
regularize the transfer of management of the School. It is
submitted that the same may not be interfered with, for the
conduct of School itself would be instalemate once the said order
goes.
4. It is evident from Exhibit P-1 deed that AMUP School, Mampad
was purchased from one Aminakutty by the Shihab Thangal
Educational and Charitable Trust. The Constitution of the Trust is
evident from Exhibit P-1. Petitioner is no longer a member of the
Trust. He has been removed from the Trust and it has been
unanimously agreed to by the whole members. True copy of the
minutes dated 11.06.2021 is produced herewith and marked as
Exhibit R-5(a). Petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same till
date.
5. Pursuant to Exhibit P-9, the Director has made over the same
and the original deeds of the School was made over to the AEO
vide letter dated 18.09.2023. True copy of the letter No.
E2/14106/2023/DGE dated 18.09.2023 is produced herewith and
marked as Exhibit R-5(b).
6. Referring to Exhibit R-5(b) the AEO has addressed the Director
requesting for formal orders over the change of management. True
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:62000
copy of the letter No. AEONBR/346/2023-F dated 11.10.2023 is
produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-5(c).
7. It is submitted that the Constitution of Educational Agency has
been approved by the Educational Officer. True copy of the Order
No. A6/3872/2019 dated 19.08.2019 is produced herewith and
marked as Exhibit R-5(d).
8. As could be seen from Exhibit P-3, this deponent is the approved
Manager of the School. The Trust meet held on 17.09.2019
reiterated its decision to continue this deponent as the Manager of
the School. True copy of the minutes of the meeting dated
17.09.2019 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-5(e).
9. It is submitted that the Petitioner has not chosen to assail
Exhibits R-5(a), R-5(b) and R-5(e) either before the Department
or before the Government hitherto.
10. It is submitted that the contentions of the Petitioner over
Exhibit P-2 were repelled by the DEO, Director and the
Government. It may be particularly noticed that Exhibit P-4 is not
challenged by the Petitioner until this date.
11. AMUP School, Mampad is a minority Educational Institution. Its
administration cannot be taken over by the Government, going by
Section 14(9) and Chapter XX Rule 24 KER. It would appear from
the pleadings of the Petitioner that he wants to take over the
functions of the Manager by the AEO. True copy of the minority
certificate issued by National Commission for Minority Educational
Institutions dated 01.04.2013 is produced herewith and marked as
Exhibit R-5(f).
12. Petitioner may be unhappy with the administration of the
School or having discomfort over the managership of this
deponent. That by itself cannot be a reason to take over the
management of the School. As on today Petitioner is not a member
of the Trust. Therefore, he has no voice in the affairs of the School.
As born out from Exhibit R-5(a) he is ceased to be a member of
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:62000
the Trust. He has not chosen to challenge the same.
13. It would appear that as against Exhibit P-9 Petitioner has
moved Exhibit P-10 before the Minister. It is not at all a Statutory
Petition. And, this Hon'ble Court may not be justified in directing
the recipient of Exhibit P-10 to hear and dispose of the same. Since
Exhibit P-9 was issued upon a Rule 92 Revision Petition, Exhibit P-
IO is not maintainable under Rule 93 Chapter XIV A KER in the
light of decisions reported in 2007(2) KLT 325, 2009(3) KLT 650
and 2011 (3) KHC 778 etc."
4. To the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, the
appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 30.01.2024, producing
therewith Exts.P12 and P13 documents.
5. The 6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 filed a
counter affidavit dated 06.08.2024. Paragraphs 1 to 4 of that
counter affidavit read thus:
"1. I am the General Secretary of the 6 th respondent Trust and
its principal executive officer. The Writ Petition is filed seeking to
set aside Exts.P2 and P9 orders and for a direction to consider
Ext.P10 representation submitted by the petitioner. I have been
impleaded to represent the Trust as its General Secretary. I have
read and understood the Writ Petition and state as follows in reply
thereto. All the averments and allegations are denied except
those and to the extent that are specifically admitted hereunder.
2. I am appointed so as per Ext.P1 Trust Deed. The powers of
the General Secretary have been enumerated in Para 15 of the
deed. As per the terms of the Trust Deed the General Secretary
shall convene all the meetings of trustees and maintain the
minutes of the same. He shall be the custodian of all the records
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:62000
and properties of the Trust and handle the correspondence on
behalf of the Trust. But unfortunately I have not been allowed to
function properly and the entire matters relating to the Trust is
being handled by the 5th respondent.
3. As per Ext.P1 deed all the office bearers were appointed for a
period of three years. But thereafter there were no elections or
appointment of office bearers. The records of the Trust, including
the minutes of the meetings, are in the custody of the 5 th
respondent and he is retaining the same unauthorisedly. Though
the General Secretary is empowered to convene the meetings it
is submitted that regular meetings as required in the Trust deed
were not properly convened.
4. It appears from the pleadings in the Writ Petition it appears
that the 5th respondent has been effecting correspondence with
the departmental authorities on behalf of the Trust. It is
submitted that as per Ext.P1 deed it is for the General Secretary
to carry on such correspondence. The 5 th respondent has been
acting as if he is the educational agency in respect of the School.
I was not aware of the filing of W.P. (C)No.6171 of 2022 on behalf
of the Trust."
6. In W.A.No.592 of 2025 also the 5th respondent filed a
counter affidavit dated 09.05.2025, inter alia raising some
additional contentions, however, in the line of his contentions
raised in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition.
7. The 6th respondent Trust in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023
filed W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024, however, through another person
claiming as its Secretary. In W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024, the
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:62000
appellant in Writ Appeal No.594 of 2025 pleaded that after the
purchase of the School, the Trust permitted the erstwhile Manager
to continue in the said post. Later, the trust appointed
Sri.Muhammed Ali Kambarath, who is the 5th respondent in
W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 as the Manager and made an application
for approval of his appointment without change of ownership of
the properties. The said application was allowed by the order
dated 13.08.2018 issued by the Assistant Educational Officer, and
later an application was moved before the Director of General
Education to ratify the transfer of management and School
properties in accordance with Rule 5A of Chapter III of KER. But
that application was rejected by the order dated 26.02.2021 of the
Director of General Education, and it was confirmed by the
Government as per the order dated 05.02.2022. The appellant in
Writ Appeal No.594 of 2025 challenged these two orders before
this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.6171 of 2022. By the interim order
dated 04.04.2022 in that writ petition, this Court stayed the
direction to hand over the management of the School to the
Assistant Educational Officer. Thereafter, by the judgment dated
05.04.2023 in W.P.(C)No.6171 of 2022, this Court directed the
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:62000
Government to reconsider the matter in accordance with the
Circular dated 24.11.2021. Accordingly, the Government
reconsidered the matter afresh and permitted the 5th respondent
in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 to continue as Manager with further
direction to the Trust to submit an application for regularisation of
the transfer of ownership of the School properties and the
management, before the Director of General Education.
Thereafter, the Trust submitted a petition dated 19.07.2023 before
the Director of General Education. However, no orders have been
passed in that application. Subsequently, the Director of General
Education returned all the documents submitted along with the
application dated 19.07.2023 without enclosing the order granting
regularisation. Therefore, the Assistant Educational Officer issued
a letter dated 11.10.2023 to furnish a copy of the order. But even
after ten months of issuance of that letter, no action was taken
by the Director of General Education. In those circumstances, the
appellant in W.A.No.594 of 2025 filed W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the Director of General Education to take a
decision on its application dated 19.07.2023, which was marked
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 16 2025:KER:62000
as Ext.P14 in that writ petition. The appellant has also sought for
a declaration that in view of the direction contained in GO dated
06.07.2023 [Ext.P13 in W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024 and Ext.P9 in
W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023], the 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.33822
of 2023 is entitled to continue as the Manager of the School with
all attendant powers till the issuance of an order in the
representation dated 19.07.2023 submitted by the appellant
before the Director of General Education. The appellant further
sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents in that
writ petition to provide the user ID and password to operate the
SAMANWAYA Online portal in respect of the School forthwith; a
declaration that in view of the direction in the GO dated
06.07.2023, the 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 had
continued as the Manager of the School and the decisions taken
by him are liable to be ratified and also to permit the present
Manager of the School to fill up the existing vacancies in the
School.
7.1. The 4th respondent District Educational Officer filed a
counter affidavit dated 30.01.2025 in W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024
referring to various orders passed by this Court and the
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:62000
educational authorities in the dispute pertaining to the
Managership of the School in question.
8. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the
writ petitions. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of that judgment, which
contain the reasoning of the learned Single Judge for the dismissal
of the writ petitions, read thus:
"17. In Ext.P9, the 5th respondent was permitted to act as
Manager only as a stopgap arrangement and that too for a short
period. The petitioner being removed from the Trust and the
appointment of the 5th respondent being a temporary
arrangement, I am not inclined to interfere with Exts.P2 and P9
orders.
18. As regards W.P.(C) No.30218/2024 filed by the Trust, the
entitlement of the 5th respondent to continue as Manager would
depend upon the transfer of ownership and management of the
School in favour of the Trust. The proposal is pending before the
Government. Therefore, no declaration can be granted to the 6 th
respondent-Trust to the effect that 5th respondent is entitled to
continue as the Manager of the School."
9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in
Writ Appeal No.592 of 2025, the learned counsel for respondent
No.5 in that writ appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant in
Writ Appeal No.594 of 2025 and the learned Senior Government
Pleader.
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:62000
10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that Ext.P3 revision petition filed by the appellant
was initially allowed by Ext.P6 order dated 05.02.2022 of the 1 st
respondent. But, after the setting aside of that order by Ext.P8
judgment dated 05.04.2023 in W.P.(C)No.6171 of 2022 with a
direction to reconsider the same, no further orders have been
issued on Ext.P3. Even while passing Ext.P9 order dated
06.07.2023 by the 1st respondent, there is no whisper regarding
Ext.P3 revision. Therefore, the learned Single Judge went wrong
in holding that Ext.P3 revision was rejected by the 1st respondent.
There is no order appointing the 5th respondent as the Manager of
the School by the Trust. In fact, the 5th respondent has fabricated
the documents to claim the post of Manager. The 5th respondent
effected appointment of Teachers in the School, in violation of
Ext.P7 interim order dated 04.04.2022 issued in the writ petition.
The finding in the impugned judgment that Ext.P3 revision petition
was rejected by the 1st respondent will give the impression that
Ext.P2 order dated 13.08.2018 approving the 5th respondent as
Manager is affirmed. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that
there may be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 19 2025:KER:62000
revision on merits, and till that date, the status quo may be
directed to be maintained.
11. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent would
submit that the appellant cannot file a revision petition directly to
the Government against the order of the 4th respondent Assistant
Educational Officer, since, as per Chapter III Rule 4(3) of KER an
appeal is provided to the Director of General Education against the
order of the Assistant Educational Officer. Therefore, Ext.P3
revision itself is not maintainable. Apart from that, though it is not
specifically mentioned while passing Ext.P9 order, the 1st
respondent considered all the contentions that were raised in
Ext.P3 revision. Hence, no interference is needed to the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge.
12. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that the direction in Ext.P8 judgment was to consider the revision
filed by the appellant based on the Circulars. The 1 st respondent
considered all those aspects in Ext.P9 order, including the
pendency of the Civil Suit between the parties. Though it is not
specifically mentioned, the contentions in Ext.P3 revision have
also been considered by the Government while passing Ext.P9
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 20 2025:KER:62000
order.
13. The dispute between the parties in both these cases
pertains to the management of the School under the Trust. When
the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 seeks to quash Ext.P9
order of the 1st respondent, permitting the 5th respondent to
continue as Manager for three months, with a direction to approve
the transfer of management of the School within that period, in
W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024 the Trust is seeking a declaration that
the 5th respondent is entitled to continue as a Manager.
14. The management of the School came into the control
of the Trust with effect from 20.04.2013. The appointment of the
5th respondent as manager with effect from 01.07.2018 was
approved by the Assistant Educational Officer as per Ext.P2 order
dated 13.08.2018. That order was challenged by the appellant in
Ext.P3 revision petition before the Government. Though the
revision petition was initially allowed by Ext.P6 order, by Ext.P8
judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside Ext.P6
since the said order was passed without considering the Circular
dated 24.11.2021 issued by the 1st respondent. Thereafter, Ext.P9
order was passed by the 1st respondent. According to the 5th
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 21 2025:KER:62000
respondent, Ext.P3 revision is not maintainable before the
Government, since an appeal provision is provided against Ext.P2
order under Rule 4 of Chapter III of KER.
15. Rule 4 of Chapter III of KER reads thus:
"4. Approval of appointment of Managers - (1) The Educational
Officers shall be competent to approve the appointment of
Managers by Educational Agencies and to approve changes in the
personnel of the Managers.
(2) If the Educational Agencies have schools in more than one
Educational District within a Revenue District the appointment of
Managers and changes in the personnel of the Managers may be
approved by the Deputy Director (Education) having jurisdiction
in the Revenue District. If the Educational Agencies have schools
in more than one Revenue District the appointment of managers
and changes in the personnel of the Managers may be approved
by the Director.
(2A) The approval of appointment of Managers and changes in the
personnel of the Managers under sub-rules (1) and (2) above shall
take effect from the date of actual assumption of charge of the
management specified in the order of approval issued by the
competent authorities concerned.
(3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Educational Officer
under sub-rule (1) or of the Deputy Director (Education) under
sub-rule (2) may within 30 days from the date of receipt of the
order prefer an appeal to the Director.
(4) Government may, on their own motion or otherwise, revise
any order passed by the Director"
16. While going through Rule 4(3) of Chapter III of KER,
we notice that any person aggrieved by an order of the Educational
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 22 2025:KER:62000
Officer under sub-rule (1), may, within 30 days from the date of
receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the Director. Rule 4(4) of
Chapter III of KER provides revision to the Government against an
order passed by the Director. It is true that against Ext.P2 order
of the 4th respondent, the appellant preferred Ext.P3 revision
directly to the Government. However, by Ext.P8 judgment, this
Court directed the Government to reconsider Ext.P3 revision. The
parties conceded to Ext.P8 judgment and participated in the
proceedings before the Government. Therefore, there is no
necessity to once again go back to the stage of Rule 4(3) of
Chapter III of KER. While going through Ext.P9 order of the 1 st
respondent, we notice that even though by Ext.P8 judgment, the
learned Single Judge of this Court set aside Ext.P6 order, and
directed to reconsider the matter, there is no whisper about Ext.P3
revision in Ext.P9 order. In such circumstances, we find force in
the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in
W.A.No.592 of 2025 that Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st
respondent is without taking into account the directions in Ext.P8
judgment, in its proper perspective.
17. From the materials on record, we notice that by the
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 23 2025:KER:62000
interim order dated 29.08.2024 in W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024, the
learned Single Judge permitted the 5th respondent in W.A.No.592
of 2025 namely, Sri.Muhammed Ali K. to continue as the Manager
of the School for a period of two months. Subsequently, by the
order dated 12.09.2024 in I.A. No.2 of 2024 in that writ petition,
the learned Single Judge modified the interim order dated
29.08.2024 to the effect that the 5th respondent Muhammed Ali K.
shall not be permitted to make any appointment or take any policy
decisions in any matter concerning the School. It was also clarified
that the appointment made by the 5th respondent after Ext.P11
order, shall not be approved without obtaining orders from this
Court.
18. On 10.04.2025 , when W.A.No.594 of 2025 was taken
up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that approval was granted to the 5th respondent Sri.Muhammed
Ali K. to act as a Manager for three months, and there is currently
no approved Manager. In view of that submission, this Court
directed that if there is no approved Manager now functioning, the
Assistant Educational Officer (AEO) shall continue to act as the
Manager till further orders are passed. Subsequently, the 5 th
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 24 2025:KER:62000
respondent filed IA No.1 of 2025 in W.A.No.592 of 2025 seeking
modification of the order dated 10.04.2025 and to permit him to
continue as Manager of the School, and to discharge his duties of
Manager. The relief sought in that interlocutory application was
opposed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in WA
No.592 of 2025. By the order dated 30.5.2025, this Court
adjourned the said interlocutory application for a detailed hearing.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, W.A.No.592 of 2025 is allowed
by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2025 in
W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023. Consequently, W.P.(C)No.33822 of
2023 is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P9 order dated
06.07.2023 passed by the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent
is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, after giving notice to
the parties and considering their rival contentions, in accordance
with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Considering the dispute involved in these writ appeals, we direct
the Assistant Educational Officer to act as the Manager of the
School till the decision is being taken by the 1 st respondent as
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 25 2025:KER:62000
directed above. In view of the above direction, W.A.No.594 of
2025 stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
DSV/-
WA NO. 592 OF 2025 &
WA NO.594 OF 2025 26 2025:KER:62000
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TRUST
APPROVING THE DECISION DATED 11.06.2021 TO
REMOVE THE 6TH RESPONDENT FROM THE MEMBERSHIP
OF THE TRUST
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.02.2024
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
THE CURRENT MANAGER APPOINTED BY THE
APPELLANT TRUST IN W.P(C)NO.33822/2023 DATED
15.11.2023
