IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11259 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.ABDUL KHADER, S/O.P.K.MOHAMMED (LATE), VAZHAYIL HOUSE AKKODE P.O., VAZHAKKAD (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.VINODKLUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DT. 4. VARGHESE C.K., A.M.U.P.SCHOOL, AKKODE VIRIPPADAM, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. MR.MUSTHAFA HUDAVI, S/O.KUNHUMOHAMMED, SECRETARY, ISLAMIC CENTRE PULLISSERY HOUSE, AKKODE VIRIPPADOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY MR.T.T.MUHAMMOOD, GOVERNMENTPLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ---------------------- WP(C) No.11259 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by a person claiming to be entitled to be the Manager of the A.M.U.P School, Akkode, Virippadam. He is aggrieved by Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 orders. Ext.P5 is the Government Order dated 11.3.2009, whereby the Government directed that notwithstanding the management dispute raised by the petitioner, the appointment of the fourth respondent as Head Master of the school has to be approved. Pursuant to the same, by Ext.P6 order the second respondent approved the appointment of the 4th respondent as Head Master of the school with effect from 01.6.2006. The contention of the petitioner is that the appointment of the 4th respondent as Head Master was made by a person who was usurping the position of Manager, whose eligibility to be a Manager of the school is in dispute as evidenced by Ext.P1 order in I.A.No.816/2008 in O.S.No.107/2006. The petitioner therefore submits that 2 WP(C) No.11259 of 2010 since appointment of the fourth respondent is not made by a person entitled to be the Manager of the school, the appointment could not have been validly approved. 2. I specifically asked the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the fourth respondent was legally entitled to be appointed as the Head Master of the school, but for the management dispute. He refused to answer that question, stating that, that is not a question arising in this case. I told him that, the same is a specific question arising in this case, even then he refused to answer that question. Therefore I am inclined to assure that the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the fourth respondent is legally entitled to be the Head Master of the school, but for the management dispute. It is settled law that management dispute cannot affect the validity of an appointment made, if the same is otherwise in order. It is also not stated in the writ petition that at the time of the appointment, the fifth respondent was not the approved Manager of the school. When the 3 WP(C) No.11259 of 2010 petitioner does not state in the writ petition that at the time of appointing the fourth respondent as the Head Master of the school, the Manager who appointed him was not the approved manager, I do not think that the petitioner can validly challenge the appointment of the fourth respondent as Head Master of the school, especially since the petitioner has no case against the eligibility of the fourth respondent to be appointed as the Head Master of the school. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE DMB