IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 2339 of 2006(D) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25860/2006 Dated 03/10/2006 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION ---------------------- P.RAMESH BABU, PADMAGIRI NIVAS, A.N.PURAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION (F) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. J.RADHAKRISHNA NAIK, REVATHY NIVAS, CONVENT ROAD, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 524. ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P FOR R3 SRI.R.RAMESH FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.1.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------- W.A No. 2339 OF 2006 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25860/2006 has preferred this writ appeal, feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge disposing of that writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioner is a member of Alappuzha Anathanarayana Thuravoor Thirumala Devaswom (AATTD), a Hindu Public Religious Trust. It is the Educational Agency of a few schools. The 3rd respondent was elected Manager of that school in 1999 for a period of five years. Though his term expired on 24.8.2004, he continued thereafter and managed the Educational Institutions, made appointments, admitted students etc., it is submitted. The Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 18.3.2005 approved the continuance of the 3rd respondent as Manager from 12.8.2004 to 14.7.2005. In a writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant, the said order was quashed by this W.A.No.2339/2006 2 Court on 8.7.2005. During the pendency of that writ petition, there was a stay against the above approval order from 18.5.2005. This Court directed the Deputy Director to reconsider the matter. The said Officer passed Ext.P5 and declined to grant approval for the extended term of the 3rd respondent. He went in revision before the Government. The Government passed Ext.P6 order. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “8. In the above circumstances and in view of the court direction, Government are pleased to direct the Deputy Director of Education Alappuzha to take the following actions:- a) To recognise the period during which Sri.Radhakrishna Naik was allowed to continue as Corporate Manager of TD Schools. b) Not to approve the appointments of teachers and non teaching staff, if any, made by Sri.Radhakrishna Naik after 08.07.05 [date of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.14659/05(T)]. c) To approve the admission of students made during the extended tenure of managership of Sri.Radhakrishna Naik.” W.A.No.2339/2006 3 3. The present writ petition was filed by him challenging, mainly, the directions (a) and (b) contained in paragraph 8 quoted above of Ext.P6. The learned Single Judge by the judgment under appeal dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the above directions. If the Trust is aggrieved, it can workout its remedies. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is preferred. 4. Going by Ext.P6, it would appear that this Court by Ext.P4 judgment allowed the 3rd respondent to function as the Manager of the school for attending to the day today functions. It was also ordered that he shall not make any appointments of teaching staff or non teaching staff. Direction No.(a) is to recognise the said period of the erstwhile Manager, who functioned on the strength of the above direction of this Court. Direction No.(b) is attacked stating that the cut of date should not have been 08.7.2005, but 18.5.2005, the date on which he moved and obtained interim order in W.P.(C) No. 14659/2005, which was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment. The petitioner is not W.A.No.2339/2006 4 sure whether any appointments have been made by the 3rd respondent between 18.5.2005 and 8.7.2005. If only, such appointments were made, the fixation of cut of date as 8.7.2005 instead of 18.5.2005 is objectionable. In view of the above position, we find no valid ground has been raised before us to interfere with the impugned judgment. Further, we fully concur with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that it is for the Trust itself to take action, if it is aggrieved by Ext.P6. The majority of the members and the new Manger may be approving the actions of the erstwhile Manager and there may be beneficiaries of those actions also. If we act on the motion made by an individual member, the same will cause serious prejudice to others. So, we fully agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ps