IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 29456 of 2006(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------ C.A. CHACKO, S/O. C.C.ABRAHAM, AGED 72 YEARS, CHATHENKERIL HOUSE, ROSE MOUNT, STADIUM ROAD, THIRUVALLA, MANAGER, KADAPRA ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, KADAPRA. BY ADV. SMT.DEEPA G. PAL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI.K.K.IYPE, S/O.KURIAN KOCHU KURIAN, VARAMBINAKATHU HOUSE, KIZHAKUMBHAGOM P.O., NIRANAM WEST, THIRUVALLA. 4. SARAMMA, VARAMBINAKATHU HOUSE, NIRANAM WEST, THIRUVALLA. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29456 of 2006(F) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE UDAMBADY NO.115 OF 1093 M.E.DATED 22.6.1993. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2002 IN O.S. NO.161/1995 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.B1676/2003 DATED 7.10.2003 ISSUED BY THE D.E.O. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18.12.2003 IN WPC NO.40064/2003 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3-165/04 KDIS DATED 12.04.04. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16TH JUNE 2004 IN WPC NO.40064/2003. EXT.P7. GOVERNMENT BY ORDER NO.G.O. (RT) NO.5204/04 G. EDN. DATED 6.12.2004. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.05 EXT.P9. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19TH OCTOBER 2005 IN WPC NO.688/2005 EXT.P10. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24TH OCTOBER 2005 IN WPC NO.6470/2005. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET (3)/45487/05/DPI/D.DIS. DATED 25.1.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- EXT.R4 (A). COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2005 IN WPC NO.688/05 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29456 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the manager of an aided school. The school was formerly managed by a 15 member committee including the petitioner's father constituted by a deed in the year 1093 ME. The 3rd respondent claimed certain proprietary rights in respect of the management of the school. He constituted a managing committee by himself and got himself appointed as the manager. This resulted in a series of writ petitions and a civil suit. Ultimately, the Civil Court decided the issue in favour of the petitioner holding that the committee constituted with the petitioner as the manager is the committee entitled to manage the affairs of the school. The writ petitions were ultimately disposed of by this Court directing the Government to decide the issue in accordance with the decree of the Civil Court. The Government, by Ext.P7 order, found that the eight member committee constituted with the petitioner as the manager is the committee entitled to manage the affairs of the school. While the W.P.(C)No.29456/06 2 3rd respondent was managing the affairs of the school as manager, he appointed the 4th respondent as a Lower Division Clerk in the school. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is the daughter-in-law of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner contends that insofar as the 3rd respondent had no manner of right to appoint anybody in the school, the appointment of the 4th respondent is clearly without jurisdiction and could not have been approved. After Ext.P7 order of the Government, the DEO took up the question of validity of appointment of the 4th respondent and held that in view of the Government Order, the appointment is bad. The petitioner filed Ext.P8 revision before the 2nd respondent, Director of Public Instructions against Ext.P7. While that revision was pending the 4th respondent along with another teacher appointed by the 3rd respondent approached this Court, against the order o f the DEO cancelling their appointments. By Ext.P9 judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the claim of the 4th respondent and the other teacher in view of the decision of this Court in Manager, St. Mary's H.S. v. Beji Abraham [2002(1) KLT 406] and quashed the order of the DEO. But, in Ext.P9 judgment, it was held that the same W.P.(C)No.29456/06 3 would be subject to the result of the revision filed by the petitioner pending before the Director of Public Instructions. By Ext.P10 judgment in W.P.(C)No.6470/2005 filed by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge also directed the Director of Public Instructions to consider and pass orders on the revision petition. Pursuant thereto, by Ext.P11 order, the Director of Public Instructions dismissed the revision on the ground that since this Court has already quashed the order of the DEO cancelling the appointment of the 4th respondent, the revision filed against the order of the DEO will not stand. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Declare that the appointment of the 4th respondent as L.D.C. is void ab- initio. (ii) Call for the records leading to Exhibit-P3 and P11 may quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 3. I am of opinion that as long as Ext.P9 judgment stands, I cannot interfere with the appointment of the 4th respondent. It is true that in Ext.P9 judgment, while accepting the contention of the 4th respondent and quashing Ext.P7 W.P.(C)No.29456/06 4 order, this Court has stated that it would be subject to the result of the revision filed by the petitioner pending before the Director of Public Instructions. But, once this Court had quashed the order of the DEO against which only revision was filed by the petitioner it is of no consequence at all. The DPI cannot decide a revision petition against an order which had already been quashed by this Court on merits. Further, in Ext.P9 judgment the claim of the 4th respondent has been upheld in the light of the decision in Beji Abraham's case (supra). As long as that stands, I do not think that I can give any relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed but, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out her remedies against Ext.P9 judgment appropriately. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.29456/06 5 W.P.(C)No.29456/06 6