IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6981 of 2009(O) ------------------------- OS.547/2003 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. HALEEMA, W/O.PANIKKAVEETIL MYHAMMEDALI, VADANAPPILLY DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 3. KHADEEJA, D/O.VALIYAKATH MUHAMMED, EDATHIRINJI, THRISSUR DIST. & W/O.OTTATHAIKKAL ABDUL KHADER. 4. UMMER, S/O.MUHAMMED, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR DIST. 5. ABDUL RAZAQ, S/O.MUHAMMED, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR DIST. 6. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P SRI.SHYSAN.P.MANGUZHA ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R2 SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN FOR R2 SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED FOR R4,5 SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN FOR R4,5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C NO.6981/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: 1. EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO.1406/08 IN I.A NO. 1370/05 IN O.S NO.547/03 DATED 28.05.08. 2. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.07.08 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 3. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.02.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //True Copy// P.A to Judge S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6981 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March 2010 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for records leading to Ext.P1 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P1. ii) Call for records leading to Ext.P2 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P2. iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 6th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and until then direct the 1st respondent not to approve any appointment made in RILP School Edathirinji. iv) Issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court. v) Award cost of this proceeding to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is one among the plaintiffs in O.S No.547 of 2003 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda. Above suit was one for partition in which the right of management over a school was also one among the subject matters in dispute. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit whereunder right of management over the school between the sharers was specified providing the term of their management. In the final decree proceedings, the plaintiff as well as some of the defendants moved applications raising the dispute over the management of W.P.(C) No.6981 OF 2009 Page numbers the school and seeking directions on the basis of the preliminary decree. The court below after considering the rival case set up by the parties passed Ext.P1 order. On the basis of P1 order, subsequently the education authority, the 1st respondent, has passed Ext.P2 order with respect to the management of the school. 3. Petitioner, one among the plaintiffs, has filed this writ petition seeking the aforementioned reliefs impeaching the propriety and correctness of Ext.P1 order and also Ext.P2 order passed on the basis of Ext.P1 order. The main challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of Manager is covered by Kerala Education Rules and the petitioner having been appointed in consonance with the provisions of the Act, the order and directions passed by the civil court over the management of the school and consequential orders passed by the 1st respondent under Ext.P2 order are not legal, proper and correct. Any dispute over the post of Manager, according to the counsel, has to be decided and determined under the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules by the competent authority. It is not disputed that the preliminary decree passed in the case has become final and conclusive with no challenge by any of the parties. It is also not disputed that the preliminary decree provided the manner in which the W.P.(C) No.6981 OF 2009 Page numbers management of the school between the sharers are to be given effect to. Ext.P1 order passed in terms of the directions in the preliminary decree is also not impeached. When that be so, the order passed under Ext.P1 cannot be challenged before this court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. If at all the petitioner has a case that Ext.P2 order on the basis of Ext.P1 order passed by the civil court is not correct then his remedy is to challenge Ext.P2 order in the appropriate forum as provided by law. Reserving his right to challenge Ext.P2 order, if so provided under law, before the appropriate forum, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv