Kerala High Court
Sayyid Hashim K.V.K vs The District Educational Officer on 19 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 7202 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
SAYYID HAMEED ALI K.V.K.
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGGAL, AL-NAJAH,
VATTALLOOR P.O., MAKKARAPARAMBU, KURUVA, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-676505.
BY ADVS.
ELVIN PETER P.J.
K.R.GANESH
GOURI BALAGOPAL
ABHIJITH.K.ANIRUDHAN
SREELEKSHMI A.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
MALAPPURAM-676505.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MALAPPURAM, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM-676505.
5 SHAREEFA FATHIMA MULLA BEEVI P.M.,
W/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, SAYYID MANZIL
HOUSE, MAKKARAPARAMBA, KURUVA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676507.
6 SAYYID HASHIM K.V.K.,
2024:KER:98378
WP(C)Nos.7202 of 2022 & con.cases 2
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, SAYYID
MANZIL, MAKKARAPARAMBA, KURUVA P.O., MALAPPURAM-
676507.
7 MARIYAM BEEVI,
D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT
VALLYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL, KURUVA,
MAKKARAPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676507.
8 SAINABA BEEVI,
D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT
VALLYAKATH, KAPPAT VALLYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID
MANZIL, KURUVA, MAKKARAPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-
676507.
9 SHEREEFA BEEVI K.V.K.,
D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT
VALLYAKATH, KAPPAT VALLYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID
MANZIL, KURUVA, MAKKARAPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-
676507.
0 SHADIYA BEEVI,
D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT
VALLYAKATH, KAPPAT VALLYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID
MANZIL, KURUVA, MAKKARAPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-
676507.
11 SREEDEVI K.R
W/O SATHEESH BABU P., AGED 56 YEARS, PRINCIPAL, I.K.T
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHERUKULAMBU RESIDING AT
VENGOLI HOUSE, CHATTIPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM- 676504
(ADDL R11 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02/04/2024 IN
IA/1/24 IN WP(C) 7202/2022)
BY ADVS.
JAYARAM P
MARTIN JOSE P
P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL
BIJU ABRAHAM
P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005)
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA(K/420-B/2005)
AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012)
MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015)
R.GITHESH(K/630/2002)
ANNA LINDA V.J(K/1201/2020)
2024:KER:98378
WP(C)Nos.7202 of 2022 & con.cases 3
HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019)
SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C) Nos.7684/2022 AND 26364/2021, THE
COURT ON 19.02.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:98378
WP(C)Nos.7202 of 2022 & con.cases 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 7684 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
SAYYID HASHIM K.V.K.
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, SAYYID
MANZIL, MAKKARAPARAMBA, KURUVA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676
507
BY ADVS.
P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
M.R.SABU
LAKSHMI RAMADAS
APARNA RAJAN
SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MALAPPURAM, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM-676 505
2 SHAREEFA FATHIMA MULLA BEEVI P.M.,
W/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, SAYYID
MANZIL, MAKKARAPPARAMBA, KURUVA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676
507
3 SAYYID HAMEED ALI.K.V.K.,
S/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, DHARUL SALAM
HOUSE, CHERUKULABA, VATTALUR P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 505
4 MARIYAM BEEVI,
D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT
2024:KER:98378
WP(C)Nos.7202 of 2022 & con.cases 5
VALIYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL, KURUVA ,
MAKKARAPPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 507
5 SAINABA BEEVI
D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT
VALIYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL, KURUVA ,
MAKKARAPPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 507
6 SHEREEFA BEEVI.K.V.K.,
D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT
VALIYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL, KURUVA ,
MAKKARAPPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 507
7 SHADIYA BEEVI,
D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT
VALIYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL, KURUVA ,
MAKKARAPPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 507
8 ADDL. R8:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,KOTTAPADI,DOWN
HILL,MALAPPURAM-676 505 IS IMPEADED AS ADDL R8 AS PER
ORDER DATED 12/07/2022 IN IA 1/2022
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
MARTIN JOSE P
MOHAMED JAMEEL P.K
P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005)
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA(K/420-B/2005)
AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012)
MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015)
SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016)
R.GITHESH(K/630/2002)
ANNA LINDA EDEN(K/1201/2020)
HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019)
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.02.2025 ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS.7202/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 19.02.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:98378
WP(C)Nos.7202 of 2022 & con.cases 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 30TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 26364 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
SAYYID HASHIM K.V.K.
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, SAYYID
MANZIL, MAKKARAPARAMBA, KURUVA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676
507.
BY ADVS.
P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
M.R.SABU
LAKSHMI RAMADAS
APARNA RAJAN
SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MALAPPURAM, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM-676 505.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, ANNEX-II,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4 SHAREEFA FATHIMA MULLA BEEVI P.M.
W/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, SAYYID MANZIL
2024:KER:98378
WP(C)Nos.7202 of 2022 & con.cases 7
HOUSE, KURUVA, MAKKARAPPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676
507.
5 SAYYID HAMEED ALI K.V.K.
S/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGALA, DHARUL SALAM
HOUSE, CHERUKULAMBA, VATTALUR P.O., MALAPPURAM-676
505.
6 MARIYAM BEEVI
D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT
VALIYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL KURUVA,
MAKKARAPPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 507.
7 SAINABA BEEVI
D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT
VALIYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL, KURUVA,
MAKKARAPPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 507.
8 SHEREEFA BEEVI K.V.K.
D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT
VALIYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL, KURUVA,
MAKKARAPPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 507.
9 SHADIYA BEEVI
D/O. LATE SAYYID SALIH POOKOYA THANGAL, KAPPAT
VALIYAKATH KATTUNGAL, SAYYID MANZIL, KURUVA,
MAKKARAPPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 507.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
P.JAYARAM
P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL
GOVERNMENT PLEADER(GP-1)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.02.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.7202/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 19.02.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:98378
WP(C)Nos.7202 of 2022 & con.cases 8
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.7202/2022, 7684/2022, 26364/2021]
...
All these writ petitions are filed by the petitioners
raising a dispute with regard to the management of an Aided
school namely, "I.T.K. Higher Secondary School" at
Cherukulamba, Malappuram District. The petitioners are the
legal heirs of erstwhile manager. (For convenience, WP(C)
No.7202/2022 is taken as the leading case, and the Exhibits, as
well as the parties to the litigation, are hereinafter referred to as
per the sequences/ranks mentioned in the said writ petition,
unless otherwise specifically mentioned).
2. The facts that led to the filing of these writ petitions are
as follows: The school referred to above was established by late
Sri K.V.K. Pookoya Thangal. He was the Manager and the
2024:KER:98378
school was thus under an individual education agency. The said
Pookoya Thangal died on 23.4.2014. The petitioner in WP(C)
No.7202/2022 is the son of the deceased and the petitioner in
WP(C)No.26364/2021 and WP(C)No.7684/2022 is another son.
Other legal heirs of the deceased are, the 5 th respondent, the
wife of the deceased and respondents 7 to 10, the daughters of
the deceased. The 6th respondent in WP(C)No.7202/2022 is the
petitioner in the other writ petitions.
3. After the death of the said Pookoya, a joint
application was submitted by all the legal heirs of the deceased,
to appoint the 5th respondent as the Manager temporarily, for a
period of one year. Accordingly, as per Ext.P2, the 5 th
respondent was appointed as Manager till 22.04.2016. In the
meantime, there occurred certain disputes between the legal
heirs as to the management of the school and the management
was taken over by the DEO as per Ext.P3 order passed by the
2024:KER:98378
2nd respondent. In the said order, it was also directed that, the 4 th
respondent shall take necessary steps to conduct the election for
the Manager subject to the final outcome of certain civil suits
pending between the parties. However, as the 4 th respondent
could not take a decision on this issue, due to lack of consensus
amongst the legal representatives of the deceased Ext.P4 order
was passed by the Additional Director (General) of Education
directing the 3rd respondent to convene a meeting of the legal
representatives and to elect a Manager either through consensus
or through election. Accordingly, Ext.P5 order was passed by
the 3rd respondent directing the DEO to continue as the
manager, since no consensus could be arrived at by the parties
concerned.
4. A challenge was raised against Ext.P5 before the
Additional Director and it resulted in Ext.P6 order dated
20.11.2017. During the hearing before the Additional Director,
2024:KER:98378
out of the 7 legal representatives of the deceased, 4 persons
requested to appoint the 8th respondent as the Manager. Even
though, in Ext.P6 order the 8th respondent was declared as
elected as the Manager based on the majority decision, it was
noticed by the Additional Director that, as the management of
the school is vested upon more than one person, a bye-law is
absolutely necessary. Therefore, the parties were directed to
submit a bye-law and to get approval for the same from the 3 rd
respondent. Further directions were issued to the effect that, in
case such a bye-law is submitted, the 3 rd respondent shall
consider the same within one month and based on the same, the
8th respondent shall be appointed as the Manager. The
appropriate orders for approving the 8 th respondent as the
Manager were also directed to be issued, on approval of the
bye-law.
5. As against the said order, the 6th respondent submitted a
2024:KER:98378
Revision Petition before the Government which was rejected as
per Ext.P7 order dated 3.5.2018. Exhibit P7 order was
implemented by the 4th respondent DEO as per Ext.P8 order
dated 7.5.2018 by which the 8th respondent was appointed as the
Manager for a period of three years. In Ext.P8 order, it was
noticed that, as instructed in Ext.P6, a bye-law was prepared by
the parties concerned in which, out of the 7 persons, 5 persons
have signed. Exhibit P15 is the said bye-law prepared on
21.12.2017 and it was approved by the 3 rd respondent as per
Ext.P16 order dated 04.01.2018. Accordingly, the 8 th
respondent was continuing as the Manager. Exhibit P7 order
was not challenged by anyone.
6. Later, the 6th respondent submitted a request before
the 2nd respondent, (even before the tenure of appointment of
the 8th respondent, as per Ext P8 was not over), to appoint him
as the manager contending that, some of the legal
2024:KER:98378
representatives have entered into some contracts with the 6 th
respondent for transferring their shares to him. Therefore, it was
contended that, the 6th respondent became the holder of the
major share in the properties and thus entitled to be appointed
as the manager.
7. However, the said application was rejected by the
2nd respondent as per Ext.P9 order dated 9.12.2020 on the
reason that, the term of the 8th respondent as the Manager will
be over only by 6.5.2021. As against the same, the 6 th
respondent submitted Ext.P10 revision petition before the
Government. Thereafter, the 6th respondent submitted WP(C)
No.21840/2020 before this Court and it culminated in Ext.P11
judgment, wherein, this Court directed the Government to issue
final orders on the management dispute within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The
said direction was reiterated by this Court as per Ext.P12
2024:KER:98378
judgment rendered on WP(C)No.11064/2021 filed by the 6 th
respondent herein.
8. In compliance of Ext.P11 and P12 judgments,
Ext.P13 order was passed by the 1 st respondent, wherein, it was
observed that, the revision petition submitted by the 6 th
respondent before the 1st respondent was against an order
(Ext.P9) which was passed by the Additional Director taking
note of the fact that, at the relevant time, the tenure of
appointment of the 8th respondent as the Manager was not over
and by the time, the revision petition filed against the said order
came up for consideration before the Government, that term
was over. Therefore, it was observed that, as the term of the
approved manager is already over, the 6th respondent can
approach the 4th respondent seeking his appointment and a
further direction was issued to the 4 th respondent consider such
application, if any, submitted by the 6th respondent.
2024:KER:98378
9. Challenging the said order, the 6 th respondent
submitted WP(C) No.26364/2021, which is one of the writ
petitions here. As part of implementation of Ext.P13 order, the
DEO conducted a hearing and Ext.P17 order was passed
rejecting the request of the 6th respondent and upheld the
appointment the 8th respondent as the Manager of the school on
the basis of majority decision of the legal representatives of the
deceased Pookoya Thangal, which was taken as per Ext.P15
bye-law that provided for election of the Manager on the basis
of majority. Challenging Ext.P17 order the petitioner herein
filed WP(C) No.7202/2022 and 6th respondent submitted WP(C)
No.7684/2022.
10. A detailed counter affidavit was submitted by the
respondents 7 and 8 opposing the reliefs sought by the
petitioners.
11. Heard Sri. P.Ravindran, the learned Senior Counsel
2024:KER:98378
appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)Nos.7684/2022,
26364/2021, Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.7202/2022, Sri. S.
Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 7 th and
8th respondents and Sri. P. Jayaram, the learned counsel
appearing for the 5th respondent and Sri. Muhammed Jameel,
the learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent and Smt.
K.G. Sarojini, the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondents 1 to
4.
12. Thus, the challenge raised in all these writ petitions
is against Ext.P13 order passed by the Government directing the
6th respondent to approach the 4th respondent for his claim of
appointment as the manger, Ext.P15 bye-law (which is Ext.P13
in WPC 7684/2022), and Ext.P17 order passed by the 4 th
respondent in implementation of Ext.P13 order.
13. One of the main contentions raised by the learned
2024:KER:98378
Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners is that since
Ext.P12 and Ext.P13 judgments passed by this Court contained
specific directions to the Government to finally decide the
management dispute, it was not proper on the part of the
Government to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P13, directing
the 6th respondent to approach the 4th respondent. Thus, it was
contended that, Ext.P13 order cannot be treated as a proper
order issued in implementation of Ext.P11 and P12 judgments
in letter and spirit.
14. However, while considering the said contention,
the crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, what was
pending before the Government at the relevant time, was a
revision petition submitted by the 6 th respondent against Ext.P9
order by which the application submitted by the 6 th respondent
to appoint him as the manager of the school was rejected by the
Director General of Education. It is discernible from Ext.P9
2024:KER:98378
order dated 9.12.2020 that, at the time when such application
was submitted by the 6th respondent, the term of the 8th
respondent as the manager was not over. As per Ext.P15 bye-
law approved by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P16 order, the
term of the Manager was for three years from the date of the
approval of appointment. It was noticed in Ext.P9 order that,
the 8th respondent had taken charge as the manager on the basis
of the approval granted to her only on 7.5.2018 and thus, her
term was upto 06.05.2021. Besides, the appointment of the 8 th
respondent as the Manager was on the basis of the majority
decision taken by the members of the educational agency and
the same was approved as per Ext.P8 order. Thus, the matter
pending before the Government was the revision petition
submitted by the 6th respondent as against Ext.P9 order, which
rejected the prayer of the 6th respondent to appoint him as the
manager, instead of the approved manager, the 8 th respondent.
2024:KER:98378
Of course, it is true that, in Exts. P11 and P12 judgments,
directions were issued by this Court, to find a resolution to the
management disputes between the parties. The important
aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, at the relevant time,
the only dispute that was brought before the Government
relating to the management disputes was the rejection of the
request made by the 6th respondent for appointing him as the
manager. The order which was impugned in the revision
petition was passed by the Director of Education taking note of
the fact that, the request of the petitioner to appoint him as the
manager could not have been considered, as the term of the
approved manager was not over. By the time, the revision came
up for consideration before the Government, the term of the 8 th
respondent, as the manager was over and the impediment noted
by the Director of Education was not in existence. Thus, there
was a change in circumstances, and hence, the dispute raised by
2024:KER:98378
the petitioner ought to have been considered by the original
authority afresh. The Ext.P13 order was passed in such
circumstances and I do not find that the said order is against the
directions issued in Exts.P11 and P12 judgments. The
observations made in the judgments referred to above, cannot
be understood to mean that, those were intended to interfere
with the right of the Government, to take a decision they find it
appropriate and just, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
by exercising the revisional powers vested upon them.
Therefore, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P13 order while
directing the 6th respondent to approach the 4th respondent for
considering his request for appointment as the Manager.
15. The next question that arises for consideration is
with regard to the sustainability of the reasons mentioned in
Ext.P17 order passed by the 4th respondent. One of the grounds
raised by the petitioners is that, the Ext.P15 bye-law cannot be
2024:KER:98378
treated as legally sustainable, in view of the fact that, all the
members of the educational agency have not signed therein. To
support the said contention, Ext.P14 judgment was also relied
on.
16. First of all, Ext.P14 judgment cannot be treated
as a decision which lays down a proposition that, all the
members of the educational agency has to sign the bye-laws.
The factual position dealt with in Ext.P14 was completely
different. In the said decision, the bye-law was never approved
by the competent authority and the request of the petitioner
therein to be appointed as the manager was rejected due to
absence of a valid bye-law. Of course it was observed therein
that all the legal heirs have not joined in the preparation of bye-
law. However, the consequences of the same and its legal
impact, were not considered in the said judgment. The question
that was under consideration in Ext.P14 was whether is it
2024:KER:98378
proper for this court to direct the Educational Officer to conduct
an election for appointing the manager, among the legal heirs of
the deceased-Manager. It was held that, such a direction could
not have been issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and when there is dispute between the legal heirs in
respect of the management of the school or preparation of the
bye-law, necessarily it is a matter that will have to be decided
by an appropriate civil court. Thus, the observations made by
this Court in the said judgment is to the effect that, the dispute
regarding the bye-law is a matter to be decided by the
competent civil court and not by the Educational authorities.
Therefore, while applying the principles laid down in the said
decision, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings
entered in Ext.P17 order and the reasons on which such findings
are entered into. It is to be noted that, in Ext.P17, the 4 th
respondent found that, Ext.P15 bye-law is already approved and
2024:KER:98378
it is not set aside by any competent authority and the clauses
contained therein enable the parties concerned to appoint any
person among the members, as the manager of the school based
on a majority decision. Thus, it was found that, so long as such
a bye-law is in existence, the decision taken by them could not
have been interfered with. I do not find any illegality in the
reasoning adopted as above.
17. As far as the contention raised by the
petitioners that Ext.P15 bye-law is not legally sustainable, I am
of the view that, the same cannot be entertained. First of all, the
said contention was raised on the strength of the stipulation
contained in Chapter III Rule 2 of KER which reads as follows:
"Constitution of Corporate Management- In the case of
institutions under corporate Educational Agency, the
constitution of the Educational Agency to the extent and in so
far as it relates to the management of any school must be
subject to rules approved by the 1[Director] which should
prescribe among other things (a) the manner in which the
proprietary body shall carry out its functions relating to the
management of the institutions and (b) the manner in which
the managing body shall be elected or appointed, the
conditions and tenure of their office and their duties and
2024:KER:98378
powers with respect to the management of the institution. In
the case of aided schools, the manner of appointment of
managers also shall be specified in the rules. Such rules shall
not be against the provisions of the Education Act, the rules
issued under it, or any other rules passed by the Department
or the Government. Any change made in such rules
subsequently shall be subject to approval by the 1[Director]
before becoming operative."
Indeed, the said provision prescribes for framing the rules
governing the manner in which the proprietary body shall carry
out its functions relating to the management of the institutions
and the manner in which the managing body shall be elected or
appointed. However, nowhere it is mentioned that, such rules
shall be prescribed by all the members of the educational
agency unanimously. Moreover, it also does not contain any
prohibition in preparing a bye-law based on majority decision.
Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner against such
bye-law by placing reliance upon Rule 2 Chapter III of KER
cannot be entertained under Art. 226 of the Constitution of
India. If any of the members of the education agency has any
2024:KER:98378
grievance with regard to the preparation of bye-law, it comes
within the civil rights of such person. Therefore, the same can
be resolved by a competent civil court in a properly instituted
suit by the aggrieved party and the said adjudication cannot be
done in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
This view is fortified by the observations in Ext P14 judgment.
18. Another ground highlighted by the 6th
respondent, the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 7684/2022 and
26364/2022 is that, as he is the major share holder of the school
properties, he must be appointed as the manager. This
contention was rightly rejected by the authorities concerned.
First of all, as of now, there is an approved bye-law in terms of
Chapter III Rule 2 of KER, which provides the mode of
appointment of the manager. As per the same, the appointment
is based on majority decision of the members of the education
agency and in this case, the appointment is as per the said terms.
2024:KER:98378
Therefore, so long such a bye-law is in force, the 6 th respondent
cannot insist for any other mode of appointment; based on
shareholding or otherwise. Besides, the 6th respondent also
could not demonstrate his right to claim the managership on the
strength of the shareholding, based on any statutory provision or
any other enabling clauses. It is also to be noted in this regard
that, even the claim of the 6 th respondent that, he is major share
holder is not established as of now, and the said matter is now
pending before the civil court. It is to be noted that, the claim of
the 6th respondent that some of the legal representatives of the
erstwhile manager had transferred their respective shares in the
properties in his favour on the basis of certain contracts, is
disputed by the said persons and the enforcement of such
agreements are matters now pending before the civil court.
Therefore, so long as the said issues are settled, it cannot be
concluded that the 6th respondent is the major share holder. As
2024:KER:98378
far as the validity of the Ext P15 bye-law is concerned, as
observed above, if any of the parties have any grievance it is for
them to establish their right in respect of the same by
approaching a competent civil court. The resolution of the such
a dispute/claim, is beyond the scope of the machineries
contemplated under the Kerala Education Act and the rules
framed thereunder.
19. There is yet another reason on which the
challenge raised against the bye-law cannot be entertained at the
instance of the petitioner in WP(C)No.7202/2022. As far as the
said petitioner is concerned, he had already signed the said bye-
law and he has no case that, he happened to sign the same due
to any compulsion, fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. The
justification mentioned by him in the writ petition is that, at the
relevant time, he was not aware of the legal position that, all
members of the educational agency must have signed the
2024:KER:98378
bye-law. However, I do not find it as a justifiable reason that
enables him to disown his participation in the preparation of
Ext.P15 bye-law. It is one of the basic principles of law that the
ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. Therefore, after signing
the bye law voluntarily and consciously, the petitioner cannot
now turn around and challenge the bye-law and the decisions
taken as per the terms of the bye-law.
In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable
reasons to interfere with the orders impugned in these cases and
accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed without prejudice
to the rights of the petitioners herein to pursue and invoke the
civil remedies available to them before a competent civil court.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
2024:KER:98378
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7684/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR (GENERAL) NO.E.M (2)-7777/17/DPI
DATED 14.06.2017
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR (GENERAL) NO.E.M
(2)-98670/2015/DPI/K.DIS DATED 24.10.2016
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR NO.B2/29707/2016 DATED 6.7.17
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR (GENERAL) N.E.M.(2)-7777/17/DPI
K.DIS DATED 20.11.2017
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT
REJECTING THE REVISION DATED 03.05.2018
NO.G.O(P) NO.1678/2018/GENL.EDN/DEPT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO NO.K.DIS
B4/7759/2015 DATED 7.5.18
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF EDUCATION NO.E.M (2)
/6988/2020/K.DIS /DGE DATED 09.12.2020
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED
25.01.2021
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.21840/2020 DATED 18.12.2020
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.11064/2021 DATED 3.8.21
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT
G.O(P) NO.4582/2021/GENL.EDN .DEPT DATED
12.10.2021
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAW SIGNED BY
2024:KER:98378
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7 DATED NIL
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY DEPUTY
DIRECTOR DATED 04.01.2018 NO.B2/29707/2015
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 12.11.2021 NO.B4/2010/2021
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 12.02.2022
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO.26364/2021
DATED 18.02.2022
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
EDUCATIONAL OFFICER DATED 24.02.2022
NO.BA/2010/2021
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R 5(a) True copy of interim order dated 18-2-
2022in W.P.(C)No.26364 of 2022 is pending
before this Honble Court
2024:KER:98378
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26364/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE
LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE POOKOYA THANGAL TO THE
DEO DATED 10.5.2014.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO
NO.B4/2961/2014 K.DIS DATED 4.7.2014.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR (GENERAL) NO.EM(2)-7777/17/DPI
DATED 14.6.2017.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR (GENERAL)
NO.E.M(2)-98670/2015/DPI/K.DIS DATED
24.10.2016.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR NO.B2/29707/2016/DATED 6.7.17.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR (GENERAL) NO.E.M.(2)-7777/17/DPI
K.DIS DATED 20.11.2017.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT
REJECTING THE REVISION DATED 3.5.2018
NO.G.O.(P) NO.1678/2018/GENL.EDN. DEPT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO NO.K.DIS
B4/7759/2015 DATED 7.5.18.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF EDUCATION
NO.E.M(2)/6988/2020/K.DIS/DGE DATED
9.12.2020.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED
25.1.2021.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.21840/2020 DATED 18.12.2020.
2024:KER:98378
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.11064/2021 DATED 3.8.21.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT
G.O.(P) NO.4582/2021/GENL. EDN. DEPT DATED
12.10.2021.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAW SIGNED BY
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 9 DATED NIL.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF EDUCATION DATED NIL.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DATED NIL.
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEO DATED NIL.
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT DATED 12.11.2021
NO.B4/2010/2021.
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DEO,
MALAPPURAM DATED 14.01.2022 NO.B4/2010/2021
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN ARGUMENT NOTE
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DEO DATED 12.02.2022
2024:KER:98378
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7202/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE
LEGAL HEIRS OF THE LATE POOKOYA THANGAL TO
THE DEO DATED 10.5.2014 ENGLISH TRANSLATION
IS ALSO ATTACHED.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO
NO.B4/2961/2014 K.DIS. DATED 4.7.2014
ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS ALSO ATTACHED.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR (GENERAL) NO.E.M.(2)-7777/17/DPI
DATED 14.6.2017 ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS ALSO
ATTACHED.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR (GENERAL)
NO.E.M.(2)-98670/2015/DPI/K.DIS DATED
24.10.2016 ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS ALSO
ATTACHED.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR NO.B2/29707/2016/DATED 6.7.2017
ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS ALSO ATTACHED.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR (GENERAL) NO.E.M.(2)-7777/17/DPI
K.DIS DATED 20.11.2017 ENGLISH TRANSLATION
IS ALSO ATTACHED.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT
REJECTING THE REVISION DATED 3.5.2018 NO.
GO(P) NO.1678/2018/GENL.EDN. DEPARTMENT
ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS ALSO ATTACHED.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO
NO.K.DIS.B4/7759/2015 DATED 7.5.2018
ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS ALSO ATTACHED.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF EDUCATION
NO.E.M.(2)/6988/2020/K.DIS/DGE DATED
9.12.2020 ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS ALSO
2024:KER:98378
ATTACHED.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED
25.1.2021 ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS ALSO
ATTACHED.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.21840/2020 DATED 18.12.2020 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.11064/2021 DATED 3.8.2021 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT
GO(P) NO.4582/2021/GENL.EDN.DEPT DATED
12.10.2021 ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS ALSO
ATTACHED.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2020
IN WA NO.1368/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAW SIGNED BY
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 9 DATED NIL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION IS ALSO ATTACHED.
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2/29707/2016
DATED 4.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE SAME IS ALSO
ATTACHED.
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A.T.B4/2010/2021
DATED 24.2.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS ALSO
ATTACHED.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R 8(A) TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 18-2-2022
IN WP(C) NO26364 OF 2021 IS PENDING BEFORE
THIS HONBLE COURT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
2024:KER:98378
Exhibit R11(1) A TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF STATEMENT, AS ON
01-06-2023 OF I.K.T. HSS CHERUKULAMBA
Exhibit R11(2) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL
OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SMT. SREEDEVI
PETITIONER SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT
DATED 01-06-2023
Exhibit 11(3) A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER GIVEN BY
THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ALONGWITH THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL
DATED 01-06-2023
Exhibit R11(4) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-06-2023
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
