IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32124 of 2007(Y) PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. P.K.ABDUL VAHID, FULL TIME ARABIC TEACHER, THERUR U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.EDAYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. R.K.SUDHEESH, PEON, THERUR U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.EDAYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO EDUCATION, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MATTANNUR. 3. V.R.BHASKARAN, MANAGER, THERUR U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.EDAYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. A.PADMANABHAN, PADMALAYAM, P.O.EDAYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. R4 BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER APPOINTING V.R.BHASKARAN AS MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL DATED 29.5.2004. EXT.P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.1753/07 DATED 26/7/2007. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT NO.5/07 DATED 9.10.2007. EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT NO.6/07 DATED 9.10.2007. EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.30597/07 DT.22.10.07. EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.5/07 DATED 24.10.07 ISSUED BY MANAGER. EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.6/07 DATED 24.10.2007 ISSUED BY MANAGER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN COMPLIANCE OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.24090/06. EXT.R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.9.2003 IN AS.N9.130/03 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THALASSERY. EXT.R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 1/7/2004 OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.19337/2004. EXT.R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.3.2005 OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.19337/2004. EXT.R4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DPI. EXT.R4(f) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER. EXT.R4(g) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/6/2007 IN WP(C) NO.24090/2006. EXT.R4(h) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/8/2007 OF THIS COURT IN W.A.NO.1728 OF 2007. EXT.R4(i) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31/1/2006. EXT.R4(j) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 28.5.2004. EXT.R4(k) TRUE COPY OF OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.11040/06 DATED 5/6/2007. EXT.R4(l) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEO DT.21/8/2006. EXT.R4(m) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(n) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.Dis/50038/06/G4/DPI DATED 8/12/2006. EXT.R4(o) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/12/2007. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 32124 OF 2007 Y ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th January, 2009 JUDGMENT The writ petitioners are persons who claimed that they were appointed as Full Time Arabic Teacher and Peon in Therur U.P.School, Edayannur, Kannur District, by V.R.Bhaskaran, the Manager of the School. The first petitioner, P.K.Abdul Vahid, states that he was appointed as Full Time Arabic Teacher with effect from 24.6.2004 in a retirement vacancy. The petitioners say that V.R.Bhaskaran was approved as the Manager of the School as per Ext.P1 order dated 29.5.2004, passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, Mattannur. The second petitioner, R.K.Sudheesh, was appointed as Peon with effect from 5.6.2004 by V.R.Bhaskaran claiming to be the Manager. It is stated that the request of the Manager to approve the appointments of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that there is dispute between two persons as to the managership. 2. It is also stated that W.P.(C) No.19208 of 2007 was filed by the first petitioner challenging the rejection of approval of his appointment. Similarly, the second petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.206 of 2007 challenging the rejection of approval of his appointment. In that Writ Petition, an W.P.(C) NO.32124 OF 2007 :: 2 :: interim direction was issued to pay the salary to the second petitioner. That order was challenged by the Director of Public Instruction and the Assistant Educational Officer in W.A.No.1753 of 2007. In the Writ Appeal, this Court issued a direction to the second petitioner (R.K.Sudheesh) to file a Revision before the Government and the Government was directed to consider the said Revision. It is stated that the second petitioner filed a Revision and the same is pending consideration. It would also appear that the first petitioner, P.K.Abdul Vahid, had also filed a Revision before the Government. 3. The third respondent, V.R.Bhaskaran, and the fourth respondent, A.Padmanabhan, are the rival claimants to the managership. According to V.R.Bhaskaran, he was duly elected as the Manager, while A.Padmanabhan says that V.R.Bhaskaran was not elected as the Manager. According to A.Padmanabhan, he is the approved Manager. Suits are pending between respondents 3 and 4. 4. On 9.10.2007, the fourth respondent, A.Padmanabhan, in his capacity as the Manager, issued Exts.P3 and P4 show cause notices to the petitioners to show cause why their services should not be terminated. The petitioners herein challenged Exts.P3 and P4 in W.P.(C) No.30597 of 2007, which was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment dated W.P.(C) NO.32124 OF 2007 :: 3 :: 22.10.2007. In Ext.P5 judgment it was noticed that the petitioners have filed Revision Petitions before the Government challenging the orders rejecting approval of their appointment and that those Revision Petitions are pending. As per Ext.P5 judgment, this court directed the Government to consider and pass orders on the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Till final orders are passed, it was directed that the petitioners shall not be terminated from service pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 notices issued to them. It would appear that no notice was issued to respondents 3 and 4 at the time of disposal of W.P.(C) No.30597 of 2007. According to the petitioners, they brought to the notice of the fourth respondent the existence of Ext.P5 judgment. However, on 24.10.2007, Exts.P6 and P7 orders were passed by the fourth respondent, A.Padmanabhan, terminating the services of the petitioners. Exts.P6 and P7 are challenged by the petitioners in this Writ Petition. 5. The fourth respondent, A.Padmanabhan, has filed a detailed counter affidavit. He contends, inter alia, that he is the present approved Manager of the School, having been appointed as Manager with effect from 30.9.2003. A.Padmanabhan says that the third respondent, V.R.Bhaskaran, is not even a governing body member of the society, W.P.(C) NO.32124 OF 2007 :: 4 :: which is the educational agency. It is stated that the third respondent, V.R.Bhaskaran, filed O.S.No.37 of 1998, before the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba, challenging the conduct of election held on 4.1.1998 in the Society. That suit was dismissed on 29.9.2001. The third respondent did not prefer any appeal against that judgment. However, the fourth respondent, A.Padmanabhan, who is a defendant in the suit, filed A.S.No.130 of 2001 before the Sub Court, Thalassery, challenging the findings on issue Nos.2 and 3 in the suit. The third respondent, V.R.Bhaskaran, filed a Memorandum of Cross Objection. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the findings on issue Nos.2 and 3. The Memorandum of Cross Objection filed by the third respondent V.R.Bhaskaran was found to be not maintainable and it was accordingly dismissed as per the judgment dated 30.9.2003. Though V.R.Bhaskaran filed R.S.A.No.824 of 2004, it was dismissed. 6. The fourth respondent states that notwithstanding the above facts, the Assistant Educational Officer issued Ext.P1 order approving the third respondent V.R.Bhaskaran as the Manager, without referring to the judgment of the civil court. The order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer was challenged by the fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.19337 of 2004. An appeal before the Director of Public Instruction was also filed challenging that order. It is stated that this Court passed an interim order W.P.(C) NO.32124 OF 2007 :: 5 :: dated 1.7.2004 restraining the Assistant Educational Officer from approving the appointment, if any, made by the third respondent without obtaining orders from the Court. W.P.(C) No.19337 of 2004 was disposed of on 30.3.2005, directing the Director of Public Instruction to consider the appeal filed by the fourth respondent, A.Padmanabhan, within three months. In compliance with the judgment, the Director of Public Instruction passed an order dated 27.9.2005 setting aside Ext.P1 order passed by the Assistant Educational Officer. The Director of Public Instruction directed the Assistant Educational Officer to approve the fourth respondent, A.Padmanabhan, as the Manager with effect from 30.9.2003 onwards till a valid election is conducted. Though the third respondent V.R.Bhaskaran filed a Revision before the Government challenging the order of the Director of Public Instruction, the Government confirmed the order of the Director of Public Instruction. 7. It is stated that challenging the order passed by the Government, the third respondent, V.R.Bhaskaran, filed W.P.(C) No.24090 of 2006, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 5.6.2007. The third respondent filed W.A.No.1753 of 2007, which is pending. However, no stay was granted by this Court. 8. The fourth respondent states that he was not aware of Ext.P5 W.P.(C) NO.32124 OF 2007 :: 6 :: judgment and that Exts.P6 and P7 orders would not have been passed by him had he been aware of Ext.P5 judgment. 9. From the facts stated above, the following facts are fairly clear: (1) The dispute regarding managership was decided in favour of the fourth respondent, A.Padmanabhan. A Writ Appeal is pending in respect of the same before the High Court. (2) This Court in Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C) No.30597 of 2007 directed the Government to dispose of the Revision filed by the petitioners challenging the rejection of approval of their appointments. The Revision Petitions filed by the petitioners have not been disposed of so far. (3) Exts.P6 and P7 orders terminating the services of the petitioners were passed after Ext.P5 judgment dated 22.10.2007 was passed. 10. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not think that Exts.P6 and P7 should be allowed to remain in force. Those orders were passed by the fourth respondent, A.Padmanabhan, contrary to Ext.P5 judgment dated 22.10.2007. Therefore, Exts.P6 and P7 are liable to be quashed and I do so. 11. It is submitted that the Government have heard the petitioners and affected parties in the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioners W.P.(C) NO.32124 OF 2007 :: 7 :: challenging the rejection of approval of their appointments. At the time of admitting this Writ Petition on 30.10.2007, the following interim order was passed: “There would be an interim order directing the manager, Therur U.P.School to retain the petitioners in service as directed in Ext.P5 judgment notwithstanding Exts.P6 and P7 until the revision petitions are disposed of.” The interim order is in tune with Ext.P5 judgment. 11. Now, since Exts.P6 and P7 orders have been quashed, the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment would stand. The interim order passed in this Writ Petition, which is quoted above, also remains in force. Now the matter has to be decided by the Government in the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioners. Till then the interim order dated 30.10.2007 passed by this Court in this Writ Petition will be in operation. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/