IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.A.No.2231 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).9590/2008-N, DATED 03/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- ---------------------------------------- SRI.S. RAJKUMAR KAMMATH, THE CORPORATE MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATE MANAGER, T.D. SCHOLS, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. P.RAMESH BABU, PADMAGIRI NIVAS, A.N. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R3 BY ADV.SRI.S.VINOD BHAT. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2231 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd December, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer,J. Appellant, who is stated to be the Manager of an aided school managed by Alappuzha Ananthanarayanapuram Thuravoor Thirumala Devaswom, had called in question the legality and validity of Exhibit P4 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha. In the impugned order, the Deputy Director had held that nomination of respondent No.3 to the School Committee could not be sustained under Rule 8 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules, since he was serving as a teacher in an aided school. It was further held by the Deputy Director that two members of the General Body of the Devaswom should have been nominated in terms of Clause 79(ii) of Exhibit P1 bye-laws. (2) The learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by the Deputy Director, overruling the objection raised by the appellant that the said authority had no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute with regard to election of members to the Managing Committee of the school. (3) Learned counsel for the appellant, while reiterating the above contention raised before the learned Single Judge, would submit before us that the Deputy Director ought not to have entertained the complaint W.A.No.2231 of 2008 - 2 - lodged by one of the members of the Devaswom at all at a belated stage. The learned counsel has invited our attention to the following decisions of this Court in support of her contention on the question of jurisdiction of the Departmental officers to interfere with disputes relating to election to the Managing Committee of the Educational agency - Kuruvilla v. District Educational Officer and others (1970 KLT SN Page 37), Krishnan v. R.D.D. & others (1974 KLT SN 14 (Case No.111), Abdul Rahim v. State of Kerala and others (1984 KLT 773) and Iysha Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1984 KLT SN 65, Case No.110). We have gone through the above decisions. In the nature of the dispute on hand, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel in this regard. (4) The learned Single Judge, after carefully considering the aforesaid decisions, took the view that in the facts and circumstances available in the case the above contention raised by the appellant was totally misconceived. (5) We have gone through the relevant clauses of Exhibit P1 Scheme governing the management of the educational institution in question under the Devaswom. We have also carefully considered the relevant rules in Chapter III K.E.R. In our view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Deputy Director of Education was justified in entertaining the complaint and passing the impugned order. Any how, W.A.No.2231 of 2008 - 3 - we hasten to add that this view is only a prima facie expression of opinion by us. Appellant, who has admittedly got a statutory remedy by way of revision before the revisional authority, has to necessarily exhaust the said remedy. (6) If, in case, the appellant is of the view that the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, it is open to the appellant to file a revision before the revisional authority and urge that contention, in which event the said authority shall consider the issue and take a decision in the matter, in accordance with law, untrammelled by any of the observations made either by the learned Single Judge or by us in this judgment. Reserving the aforesaid liberty in favour of the appellant, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-