IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 17911 of 2002(G) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.V.KUNHIMADHAVAN, S/O.OTHENAN NAYANAR, PRESIDENT, KANAKATHIDAM TRUST, KEEZHUR P.O., IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 703. K.KUNHIMADHAVAN * (INITIALS OF THE PETITIONER'S IS CORRECTED AS "K" AS PER ORDER DATED 5.8.02 IN C.M.P. 38075/02) BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN RESPONDENT: ------------- THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE MUNDAYAMPARAMBA KSHETHRAM, P.O.MUNDAYAMPARAMBA, VIA- IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670704. BY ADV. SRI.E.V.NAYANAR SMT.ARCHANA NARAYANAN SRI.P.M.POULOSE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. No.17911/2002 ORDER ON CMP NOS.30611 & 38076/2002 IN 17911/2002 DISMISSED Sd/- 11.2.2008 S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DISTRICT REGRISTRAR, KANNUR, DT: 17.2.1999. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE SCHEME FRAMED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT, CALICUT-6, DT: 10.1.1963. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY, DT. 12.6.2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R(1)A: COPY OF ORDER NO.H.R.7/6134/92 DATED 26.2.1993 OF THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E. DEPARTMENT. EXT. R(1)B; COPY OF THE RESOLULTION DATED 5.6.2002 OF THE SRI.MUNDAYAMPARAMBA DEVASWOM L.P.SCHOOL MANAGING COMMITTEE. EXT. R(1)C: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 20.7.2000 OF THE -DO- -DO- EXT. R2(A): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DURING THE PERIOD FROM 2.1.2002 TO 30.3.2002 ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS, GOVERNMENT U.P.SCHOOL, PAYAM TO BEENA MANHERI DT: 22.5.2002. EXT. R2(B): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DURING THE PERIOD FROM 6.8.2001 TO 21.8.2001 ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS, GOVERNMENT U.P. SCHOOL, PAYPAM TO BEENA MANJERI DT: 22.5.2002. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JP S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= O.P. No.17911 of 2002 (G) ======================= Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the President of the Kanakathidam Family Trust, which owns a Temple named Mundayamparamba @ Tharakkumeethal Bhagavathi Temple and a School known as Mundayamparambu Devaswom L.P. School. The Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE settled a scheme for the management of the temple and the school, which is Ext.P2. Petitioner's grievance in this original petition is that the respondent, who is the Executive Officer of the temple who is acting as the manager of the school, is making appointments to the school in violation of the provisions of Ext.P2 scheme. His contention is that while making appointments, the respondent is bound to consult the trustees in accordance with Ext.P2 scheme which has not been done. The petitioner, therefore, seeks following reliefs: "a) Call for the records connected with the case; b) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction directing the respondent not to make any appointment against O.P. No.17911/2002/G -2- the provisions of Ext.P2 scheme at Mundayamparampa Devaswom L.P.School and to strictly follow Ext.P2 scheme in making appointment at Mundayamparamba Devaswom L.P.School; c) Declare that the Mundayamparamba Devaswom L.P.School which vest in the petitioner's family alone has the right to make appointment and only the Chairman of Board of Trustee under Ext.P2 scheme is the Manger of the School and the person entitled to make appointment in the School; d) Declare that the respondent can appoint only employees or servants nominated by the Chairman Board of Trustee representing the petitioner's family at Mundayamparampa Devaswom Temple and the School or with respect to any other property of the said Devaswom' and e) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which he has produced Ext.RI(a), which is the guidelines prescribed by the commissioner HR & CE, in which he claims that appointments have been made only in accordance with such guidelines. The respondent would submit that in the school, as per Ext.R1(a) guidelines, a committee has been formed for making appointments in the school which consists of the trustees also and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. It is further O.P. No.17911/2002/G -3- submitted that it is in accordance with such guidelines appointments were effected. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Clause 4 of Ext.P2 scheme says that the Board shall nominate one of the trustees as the managing trustee for such period as it may fix. In Ext.R1(a), the commissioner has constituted a committee for making appointments, by including the hereditary trustee. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that since as per the scheme there is no place for a hereditary trustee, he cannot be included as a member of the committee formed by Ext.R1(a). 4. After having framed Ext.P2 scheme, I am of the opinion that the commissioner could have constituted committees including office bearers of the Trust appointed as per Ext.P2 only. Accordingly, I dispose of this original petition clarifying that representatives of the Trust in the committee constituted for the purpose of appointment of teachers in the school shall only be office bearers of the trust appointed as per Ext.P2 scheme. However, I note that O.S. No.169/2006 is pending before the Sub Court, Talassery for modification of the O.P. No.17911/2002/G -4- scheme. That being so, the above direction would be subject to modification of the scheme, if any, that may be made in O.S. No.169/2006 before the Sub-Court, Talassery . The original petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp