IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 2474 of 2008 ----------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD. 10/11/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.25235/2008) .......... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- K.SUDEVAN, MANAGER, C.A.HIGH SCHOOL, PERUVAMBA, RIAT GURUKULAM, PERUVAMBA.P.O, PALAKKAD. BY MR. N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. SANTHAKUMAR, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, KARUPPALI, VADAVANNOOR.P.O, PALGHAT 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALGHAT 3. DY.DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALGHAT 4. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION O/O.THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHI, TRIVANDRUM-14. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. KRISHNAN KUTTY, S/O.VELAN, RESIDING AT MANANDATHU KULAMBU, PERUVAMBA, PALAKKAD. R2 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. NOBLE MATHEW, R1 BY MR. V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, R6 BY ADV. MR. P.K. SURESH KUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ W.A. NO: 2474 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd January, 2009. JUDGMENT BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P6, P7, P8 and P9 orders. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition quashing those orders, but issued certain directions regarding the interim arrangement of management of the school. Feeling aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal is filed. The brief facts of the case are the following:- 2. The appellant was the Manager of C.A.High School, Peruvamba, Palakkad. The school was established and managed by his father. The original manager died leaving behind two sons and two daughters. The petitioner is one of the two sons. With the consent of the other legal heirs, petitioner took over the management of the school. 3. While so, the competent authority proceeded against the appellant for his failure to do repairs for the school buildings in time and for not obtaining fitness certificate for them from the Public Works Department. Ext.P3 is the notice issued to him on W.A.2474/2008 2 15.12.2007 pointing out his failure to take fitness certificate for the year 2007-08 and proposing action against him under Rule 7 of Chapter III KER. Later the appellant obtained the fitness certificate belatedly on 29.2.2008 for the year 2007-08, the validity of which expired on 31.3.2008. He failed to obtain the fitness certificate for the subsequent year also. 4. Pursuant to Ext.P3, there was a meeting held by the Additional Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum to discuss about the dilapidated condition of the appellant's school on 7.7.2008, as evident from Ext.P5. Subsequently the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad issued Ext.P6 order disqualifying the petitioner to hold the post of manager and also appointing the first respondent herein, the elder sister of the appellant as manager of the school for two years. In Ext.P6 certain additional grounds were mentioned other than those mentioned in Ext.P3. 5. In the meantime the Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad submitted Ext.P7 report dated 6.6.2008 before the Director of Public Instruction containing a proposal to take over the management of the school. The Director of Public Instruction issued certain directions to the Deputy Director as per Ext.P8 concerning maintenance of the building of the petitioner's school. W.A.2474/2008 3 Pursuant to Ext.P6, the District Educational Officer by Ext.P9 approved the change of management. Exts.P6 to P9 were under challenge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge noticed that Ext.P6 relies on certain additional grounds than those mentioned in Ext.P3 and, therefore, quashed the said order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequential orders were also quashed. After the first respondent took over managership, she carried out repairs expending some amount and obtained fitness certificate for the present academic year. The said claim of the first respondent was supported by the official respondents also. Noticing the said fact, learned Single Judge ordered that the first respondent who is at present the manager will continue as manager till the Deputy Director, Palakkad takes a fresh decision on the question of disqualification of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by the said interim arrangement, this writ appeal is filed. 6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.N.Sugunapalan appearing for the appellant submitted that in view of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 Chapter III of KER the present action is unauthorised. If repairs are not made to the school buildings in time, the said sub rule provides that with notice to the Manager the government can provide the W.A.2474/2008 4 minimum essential facilities for the school and recover the amount from the manager. In view of the said provision, learned Senior Counsel submitted that it should be deemed that other actions, contemplated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, are excluded by necessary implication. Therefore all the actions taken by the official respondents are unauthorised, it is submitted. 7. We find it difficult to accept the above contention. Rule 7 (1) provides for disqualification of the manager for gross negligence of duty. Sub-rule (3) provides for making alternate arrangement for providing facilities in the school which the manager has neglected to provide. Those two sub-rules operate on different plains. Sub- rule (3) cannot be treated as substitute for sub-rule(1). Action under both the sub rules can be taken simultaneously. So, the above contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 8. In this writ appeal we are only called upon to decide on the validity of an order passed by the learned Single Judge in his discretion regarding the interim arrangement to be made for the management of the School. Pending decision by the competent authority, learned Single Judge said that the existing arrangement of management of the school will continue. Unless that direction W.A.2474/2008 5 is shown to be illegal or perverse, this Court is not justified in interfering with the said direction in this writ appeal. We are of the view that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge can in no way be said to be illegal or perverse. Therefore, the writ appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly it is dismissed. The first respondent shall be allowed to function as manager till the matter is finally decided by the Deputy Director. The interim direction issued by this Court on 19.12.2008 is vacated. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: