IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37602 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A. BHARGAVI, W/O. C.V. NANU, AGED 78 YEARS, MANAGER, SREE NARAYANA BASIC UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, VADAKKUMPAD, TALASSERY, RESIDING AT SUCHINTA, P.O. VADAKKUMPAD, THALASSERY -9, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY NORTH, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBILC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P. SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 37602/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R3 DTD.19.12.07. P2. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.6.8.08. P3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 27680/08 OF THIS COURT. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.25.11.08 BY R2. P5. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.23.6.09. P6. COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DTD.25.6.09. P7. COPY OF THE -DO- P8. COPY OF THE RETURNED NOTICE. P9. COPY OF THE BYE-LAW. P10. COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD.6.11.09. P11. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.9.11.09. P12. COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD.16.12.09. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 37602 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition relates to the right to managership of Sree Narayana Basic Upper Primary School, Vadakkumpad, Thalassery, which originally belonged to one K.P.Govindan, the father of the petitioner. Sri.Govindan is no more. On his death, the management of the school devolved by succession on the petitioner and her brothers and sisters jointly. The legal heirs are five in number. A dispute arose among them regarding as to who should be the manager. The Director of Public Instruction considered the dispute and passed Ext.P1 order in favour of the petitioner. Challenge by two of the legal heirs to Ext.P1 was rejected by Ext.P2 order of the 4th respondent-Government of Kerala. That was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C). No.27680/2008, which was dismissed by Ext.P3 judgment. Pursuant thereto, by Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent recognized the petitioner as the manager of the school and directed preparation of a bye-law for the management of the school for approval. According to the petitioner, after giving notice to all the legal heirs as well as the A.E.O. Ext.P9 bye-law was framed. Despite notice regarding the meeting for approval of the same, the A.E.O. and two of the members of the educational agency did not participate in the meeting. Consequently, 2 by majority, the educational agency approved the bye-law. Ext.P9 bye- law was forwarded to the 1st respondent by Ext.P10 for approval. In the meantime, the term of appointment of the petitioner as the manager as per Ext.P4 was to expire on 27.12.2009. The petitioner's Ext.P11 request for extension of the period of the petitioner's appointment as manager was not considered by the 2nd respondent. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue appropriate orders on or before 27.12.2009, extending the period of appointment of petitioner as Manager of Sree Narayana Basic Upper Primary School, Vadakkumpad, Thalassery, till the Exhibit P9 byelaw is approved by the first respondent. b) Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and approve the Exhibit P9 byelaw within a time limit that may be fixed by this honourable court;” 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that two of the members of the educational agency have not signed the bye-law and, therefore, the A.E.O. has forwarded copies of the bye-law to those two persons for their opinion on the same. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am of opinion that the if the majority of the members of the educational agency has approved the bye-law, simply because minority refuses to accept same, the same does not become automatically invalid unless the same is contrary to the Kerala 3 Education Act and Rules or any other legal provision. As such, simply because a minority of the members of the educational agency opposes the bye-law, the 1st respondent cannot deny approval to the bye-law on that ground. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall consider the question of approval of Ext.P9 bye-law and pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till then, the interim order passed on 23.12.2009, which was extended by order dated 11.1.2010, would continue to be in force. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge