s IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13763 of 2008(L) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.M.KRISHNAN UNNI,MANAGER,K.T.M HIGH SCHOOL,MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 3. K.M.SASEENDARAN UNNI,CLERK (RETIRED), K.T.M HIGH SCHOOL,MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KRISHNA KRIPA,RAJAS COLONY, MANNARKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILIP MATHEW FOR R1, 2 ADVS. MR.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R.3 MR.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R.3 MR.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R.3 MR.P.S.APPU FOR R.3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13763 of 2008(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.274/1990 IN I.A. NO. 1265/1973 IN O.S. NO. 65/1956 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.12.1991 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM IN I.A. NO.274/1990. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE HEADMASTER TO THE MANAGER AGAINST THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.08.2000. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15.4.2008 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 26.4.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2008 TOGETHER WITH THE CORRECTION ORDER DATED 03.05.2008. EXT.P6 IN I.A. NO. 5797 OF 2008 - TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 26.04.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 IN I.A. NO. 5797 OF 2008 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) - COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A2 8735.08 ISSUED BY THE D.D.E. EXT.R3(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT SHOWING THE STAFF FIXATION ORDERS AND DETAILS OF CALSS DIVISIONS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEARS 2001-02 TO 2007-08. EXT.R3(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DATED 10.3.2008. EXT.R3(c) - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30.4.2008.M // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 13763 of 2008 ............................................... Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Manager of the KTM High School, Mannarkkad in Palakkad District. The school belongs to the Mannarkkad Mooppilsthanam Estate. There was a dispute among the shares of the family regarding partition of the properties of Mooppilsthanam Estate. A Partition Suit was filed in which the school was placed under the Management of a Receiver as per Ext.P1 scheme approved by the Sub court, Ottapalam. In accordance with Ext.P2 order, the management was entrusted with a committee. The petitioner was appointed the President of the committee and in that capacity he has been managing the school from the year 1991. It appears that the 3rd respondent filed a complaint regarding certain alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner. The accounting officer in-charge of the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad, issued Ext.P5 show cause notice dated 15.4.2008, directing the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be disqualified from holding the post of Manager of the school. The W.P(C) No. 13763 of 2008 -2- petitioner submits that on receipt of the same, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 explanation dated 26.4.2008. The Deputy Director of Education Palakkad passed Ext.P7 order dated 30.4.2008, disqualifying the petitioner from holding the post of Manager with immediate effect. This was as directed in an order passed by the Government dated 8.4.2008 as G.O. No. 1755/2008, as per which the Deputy Director was to take proceedings for disqualifying the petitioner and to take over the management of the school. The petitioner has produced that order as Ext.P4. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 and P7 orders primarily on the ground that before passing Ext.P4 order no notice or opportunity of being heard was given to either the petitioner or the educational agency. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P4 order dated 08.04.2008, Ext.P5 notice dated 15.04.2008 and Ext.P7 order dated 30.04.2008.” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the disqualification of the petitioner from holding the post of Manager and taking over the Management of the School are actions which would affect the civil rights of the petitioner and the educational agency and the same could not have been taken W.P(C) No. 13763 of 2008 -3- without notice and hearing to the petitioner and the educational agency. The petitioner points out that taking over management of the school is governed by Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act which stipulates a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action before passing orders in that regard. The petitioner submits that in so far as Ext.P4 had not been preceeded by a notice or hearing as mandated by Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act, Ext.P4 is per se illegal and unsustainable. 3. Both the 2nd and 3rd respondents have filed counter affidavits supporting Exts.P4 and P7 orders. In the counter affidavits, the specific averment of the petitioner is that before passing Ext.P4 order neither the petitioner nor the educational agency had been given a show cause notice or hearing is not seen disputed. In fact, Ext.P4 order does not refer to any notice or hearing also. It refers only to a complaint filed by the 3rd respondent and a letter from the Director of Public Instructions. So evidently, Ext.P4 order was not preceeded by a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action taken in Ext.P4, as contemplated under Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act. Although before issuing Ext.P7 order, a notice has been issued to W.P(C) No. 13763 of 2008 -4- the petitioner that is an empty formality in so far as the Deputy Director is bound by Ext.P4 order and he could not have done anything contrary to Ext.P4 order no matter what the petitioner had submitted in the reply to the show cause notice. Therefore Exts.P4 and P7 orders are clearly violative of Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act and the principles of natural justice, for which reason alone they are liable to be quashed. I do so. However I make it clear that it would be open to the Government to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the educational agency as contemplated under Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act. If the Government does take fresh proceedings, it would be open to the Government to hear the 3rd respondent also in their discretion. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs