IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 27680 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.PADMAVATHY, AGED 73 YEARS, D/O.K.P.GOVINDAN, MANAGER, S.N.B.U.P.SCHOOL, VADAKKUMPAD, (RESIDING AT PADMAVILAS, VADAKKUMPAD, THALASSERY-9, KANNUR DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, ADV. SRI.K.E.HAMZA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR, KANNUR-2. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY NORTH-670 101.KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SMT.A.SOUMINI, W/O.DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT SREEKRISHNA, NEAR KARATHKUNNU, VADAKKUMPAD, THALASSERY-9, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. SMT.A.BHARGAVI, W/O.C.V.NANU, RESIDING AT SUCHINTA, VADAKKUMPAD, THALASSERY-9, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. SMT.A.VILASINI, W/O.KUMARAN,RESIDING AT DILKUSH, VADAKKUMPAD, THALASSERY-9, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI, R5 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.27680/2008-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. NO. 6666/1990-R DTD. 01/08/1990. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D. DIS. 1099/07/E OF THE ASST. EDL. OFFICER DTD. 07/04/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO. 16936/2007-B DTD. 01/08/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E-2631/07 OF THE ASST. EDL. OFFICER DTD. 13/08/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO. 24925/2007-P (THROUGH INTERNET) DTD. 20/08/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DTD. 03/11/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K. DIS/57687/07/G4/DPI OF THE R.2. DTD. 19/12/2007. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 29/12/2007. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO. 478/2008-F DTD. 04/01/2008. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1567/F2/08/G EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 14/02/2008. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE G.O. (RT). NO. 3625/08/G. EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 06/08/08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27680/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is presently the Manager of S.N.B.U.P School, Vadakkumpad, Thalassery in Kannur District. His father was the Manager of the School. After her father's death her mother succeeded in that position and continued as Manager till 1989, when she expired. Thereafter the rights over the school devolved on the 5 children of the deceased couple. It would appear that, with the majority support among the children, the petitioner was appointed as Manager and that was challenged by the 6th respondent in O.P.No.6666/1990 before this court and that O.P was dismissed by Ext.P1 judgment. 2. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent pursued the challenge before the AEO, who by Ext.P2 WP(C).No. 27680/08 2 rejected the challenge. Ext.P2 order was the subject matter of WP(c).No.16936/2007 which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing that the AEO shall reconsider the claim of the 6th respondent. AEO thereupon reconsidered the matter and passed Ext.P4 order holding that the petitioner, the provisional manager cannot be removed till the dispute among the legal heirs over the management right of the school is finally settled. 3. Ext.P4 order was challenged before this court in WP(c).No.24925/2007, which was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing the DPI to consider the appeal that was pending. The DPI there upon considered the appeal and issued Ext.P7 authorizing the Deputy Director of Education, Kannur to take a fresh decision on the issue, after hearing all concerned. Against Ext.P7, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 revision before the Government. In Ext.P9 judgment in WP(c).No.478/2008 this court directed the Government to consider the revision with notice to all WP(C).No. 27680/08 3 concerned. 4. Accordingly Ext.P10 hearing notice was issued and Ext.P11 order was issued by the Government. The relevant portion of Ext.P11 is extracted below for reference. "In the above circumstances, Ext.P8 revision petition filed by Smt. A. Padmavathy is rejected and the proceedings read as Ist paper above is upheld. Deputy Director of Education, Kannur is also directed to appoint a legal heir, nominated by majority of legal heirs as Manager of the school until a bye- law is framed and approved by the educational authorities. This shall be done after hearing all the legal heirs of late K.P.Govindan and verifying the majority in a foolproof manner. The court direction is accordingly complied with." WP(C).No. 27680/08 4 5. It is this order that is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that so long as Ext.P1, an inter-party judgment between the petitioner and the 6th respondent, has become final it is not open to either of the legal heirs to seek his change of the petitioner's provisional managership. 7. I am not in a position to accept this contention. As is evident from the facts as disclosed in Ext.P11, the Manager has left behind 5 children and among them with the majority support of three, the petitioner was appointed as the provisional manager pending resolution of the dispute among the legal heirs. Ext.P11 itself shows that now one of the legal heirs, viz. Smt. Soumini withdrew her from the group which supported the petitioner and is supporting the group lead by the 6th respondent. Thus the group opposing the petitioner has got the majority support WP(C).No. 27680/08 5 now. It was taking into account these circumstances that the Government have in Ext.P11 ordered that the Deputy Director shall appoint a legal heir nominated by the majority of the legal heirs as the Manager of the School until a bye law is framed and is approved by the Educational Authority. In my view, the view taken by the Government is a fair and reasonable view and it does not warrant interference at the hands of this court exercising its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. 8. The counsel for the petitioner referred to me Ext.P1 judgment and with particular emphasis referred to the sentence therein that the provisional approval to the petitioner is not open to challenge. As I understand, the effect of this sentence is only that the provisional approval of the petitioner could not be challenged in a proceeding under Article 226. On the other hand, if I understand this sentence one conferring total immunity to his appointment as provisional Manager, the next sentence in paragraph 5 WP(C).No. 27680/08 6 of Ext.P1 judgment, relegating the parties to peruse the legal remedies will not carry any meaning. In this view of the matter, I cannot understand Ext.P1 judgment as conferring an absolute immunity to the provisional appointment of the petitioner as Manager. On the whole, I do not find any substance in the challenge raising against Ext.P1. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(C).No. 27680/08 7