IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 2535 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REJEEV.D., MANAGER VICTORY VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL OLATHANNI, NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DAIVADANAM.L SUNIL BHAVAN, POOVANVILA, THIRUPPURAM NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R3 SRI.V.VIJULAL FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 2535/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TRUST DEED DATED 8.7.1998. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE LETTER SIGNED BY ALL TRUST MEMBERS BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC DATED 6.11.2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.2.2007 OF THE DEO. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE TRUST DEED DATED 19.9.2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.2.2009 IN I.A.NO.7409/09 IN O.S.NO.1095/08. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEO DATED 17.1.2009. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2009 OF THE DPI. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 1.11.2006. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.1095/2008. EXT.P10: A LIST OF SUCH TEACHERS APPOINTED IN NON EXISTING VACANCIES. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ONE OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TO THE DEO. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R3(a) : COPY OF ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF SCHOOL FOR JUNE TO OCT 2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2535 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the son of the third respondent. Exhibit P1 Trust Deed dated 8th July, 1998 was executed by the petitioner, the third respondent and 5 others. The Trust is called Larzar Nadar Education and Research Foundation. The Trust runs a school, namely, Victory Vocational Higher Secondary School, Olathanni, Neyyattinkara. As per Exhibit P2 agreement dated 30.10.2006 executed by the executants of the Trust Deed, the petitioner was appointed as the Manager. The appointment of the petitioner as Manager of the School was approved by the District Educational Officer as per Exhibit P3 order dated 9.2.2007. 2. On 19.9.2008, Exhibit P4 Trust Deed was executed by the third respondent and three others, without the junction of the petitioner and the other executants of Exhibit P1 Trust WPC No.2535/2010 2 Deed, by which Exhibit P1 Trust Deed was amended. By Exhibit P4, the petitioner and two others were removed from the Trust. On the basis of Exhibit P4 Trust Deed, the third respondent applied for change of management. The District Educational Officer, as per Exhibit P6 order dated 17.1.2009 rejected the proposal for approval of the third respondent as the Manager on the ground that when a Manager is continuing on the basis of a duly executed Trust, another Manager in the name of another Trust cannot be considered as the Manager. The third respondent challenged Exhibit P6 order passed by the District Educational Officer in revision before the Director of Public Instruction. The Director of Public Instruction allowed the revision as per Exhibit P7 order dated 29.12.2009, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner filed O.S.No.1095 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Additional Munsiff of Neyyattinkara to set aside Exhibit P4 Trust Deed, the amendment brought in and the WPC No.2535/2010 3 expulsion of the petitioner and two others from the Trust Deed. O.S.No.1095 of 2008 was decreed as per Exhibit P9 judgment and decree dated 17.2.2010. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only on the basis of Exhibit P4 Trust deed, Exhibit P7 order was passed by the Director of Public Instruction. Since Exhibit P4 Trust Deed has been set aside by the decree in O.S.No.1095 of 2008, the very substratum of Exhibit P7 order goes. The petitioner has a contention that he was not heard before passing Exhibit P7 order. It is not necessary to consider the same in view of the subsequent development of passing the decree in O.S.No.1095 of 2008. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that the petitioner was not appointed as the Manager as per Exhibit P1 Trust Deed and he was appointed as the Manager as per Exhibit P2 agreement executed subsequently. On WPC No.2535/2010 4 19.9.2008, another Trust Deed was executed. On the execution of Exhibit P4, the trustees selected the third respondent as the Manager and that appointment was approved by Exhibit P7 order. Even if Exhibit P4 Trust Deed is set aside, the selection and appointment of the third respondent would stand and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he is the Manager. 6. The contention put forward by the third respondent is unsustainable. The petitioner was selected and appointed as the Manager as per Exhibit P2. The petitioner was approved as the Manager as per Exhibit P3 order. There is no case for the third respondent that in a meeting of the members constituting the educational agency, another person was selected as the Manager in substitution of the petitioner. The only case of the third respondent is that the educational agency consists of the persons who are parties to Exhibit P4 Trust Deed and those members selected the third respondent as the Manager. The expulsion of the petitioner and two others from the Trust, by the execution of WPC No.2535/2010 5 Exhibit P4 Trust Deed, was found to be unsustainable by the civil court and Exhibit P4 Trust Deed was set aside. Therefore, the contention put forward by the third respondent that the selection of the third respondent would remain in tact, even if Exhibit P4 Trust Deed is set aside by the civil court, is also unsustainable. 7. In view of the aforesaid findings, Exhibit P7 order is liable to be quashed. I do so. In case the decree of the civil court is set aside, modified or reversed, the third respondent would be entitled to approach the educational officer for appropriate orders in the light of such decree passed by the civil court. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl