IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 9590 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SRI.S.RAJKUMAR KAMMATH, THE CORPORATE MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATE MANAGER, T.D.SCHOOLS, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI SRI.S.RENJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. P.RAMESH BABU, PADMAGIRI NIVAS, A.N.PURAM, ALAPPUZHA. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.9590/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SCHEME FRAMED IN OS NO.8 OF 1958 BY THE DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P2: THE PHOTOCOPY OF COMMUNICATIONOF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 14.12.2007. EXT.P3: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXPLANATION DT 27.12.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: THE PHOTOCOPY OF the ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 4.3.2008. EXT.P5: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT 23.6.2007. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DT 7.4.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 9590 OF 2008 (N) ==================== Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P4 order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Alleppey is under challenge. 2. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that essentially what was called upon to be decided by the 1st respondent was the correctness of the nomination made by the petitioner to the TD School Board, in terms of Ext.P1, the bylaws governing the same. This byelaw has been approved by the provisions contained in the KER. Examining the issue, the 1st respondent took the view that nomination of a teacher by name Sri.K.A.Santhosh Kumar is erroneous and that two members of the General Body of the Alappuzha Anantha Narayanapuram, Thuravoor Thiurmala Devaswom should be nominated in terms of Clause 79(ii) of Ext.P1 Byelaws. 3. This writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 4th June, 2008 directing that the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent against Ext.P4 shall be disposed of by the Government and that it will be open to the petitioner also to file appeal before the Government if they are aggrieved by Ext.P4. However, by order in RP No.634/08 filed by the writ petitioner, WPC 9590/08 :2 : the judgment was reviewed accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only ground on which Ext.P4 is challenged in this writ petition is lack of jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to consider the dispute in the nature of the one that led to Ext.P4. 4. Therefore, when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, I heard the counsel for the petitioner and the 3rd respondent on the question of lack of jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a dispute in the nature of the one that led to Ext.P4 can be resolved only in a civil suit. Counsel also relied on the judgments of this Court in Kuruvilla v. District Educational Officer and others (1970 KLT S.N. Page 37), Abdul Rahim v. State of Kerala and others (1984 KLT 773) and Iysha Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1984 KLT S.N.Case No.110). On this basis, it is contended that the decision has to be based on evidence that is to be adduced by the parties to the dispute and that the educational authorities are ill equipped to decide such an issue. 6. However, a reading of the aforesaid judgments do not persuade me to agree with the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. First of all, the dispute that led to Ext.P4 does not involve any proprietary rights over the school and is confined to the correctness of the WPC 9590/08 :3 : nominations to be made to the Board of the School in terms of Clause 79 (ii) of Ext.P1 byelaws. This does not warrant appreciation of any evidence, but can be resolved by interpreting Clause 79(ii). Clause 79(ii) evidently shows that the Board of Directors will consist of the President, two members of the Managing Committee and two members nominated from the General Body. Admittedly, in the quota earmarked to the members of the General Body, the members nominated are Managing Committee members. The justification offered by the petitioner is that the Managing Committee members are also members of the General Body. 7. Having gone through Ext.P4, I am inclined to think that the view taken by the 1st respondent that the quota earmarked for the members of the General Body should be filled up from among the members of the General Body and not the Committee is a reasonable and possible view and does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To decide such a limited and narrow controversy, it is not necessary to appreciate evidence and hence the contention that only the Civil Court can resolve a controversy of this nature is only to be rejected. 8. As regards want of jurisdiction now canvassed by the petitioner is concerned, a reading of the aforesaid three judgments does WPC 9590/08 :4 : not compel me to endorse the position canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Such a view has been taken in cases where dispute of ownership was involved and it has been held by this Court that the dispute could be decided only in a regular suit. Those are not cases where the dispute could be decided by interpreting the terms of the Byelaws, as in this case. That apart, the Division Bench judgments in Iysha Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1984 KLT S.N.Case No.110) and Abdul Rahim v. State of Kerala and others (1984 KLT 773) do not say that the Educational authorities do not have jurisdiction to decide the issue, but it only says that the decisions rendered by the educational authorities do not conclude the issue and that if any party is aggrieved by the decision taken, it is open to that party to get the issue adjudicated in a civil suit. That does not mean that Ext.P4 is bad for want of jurisdiction. 9. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 has been rendered by the 1st respondent without jurisdiction is only to be rejected and I do so. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp