IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 526 of 2009(O) AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13553/2009 Dated 26/05/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 4:- PARAVOOR SREENARAYANA VILASOM SAMAJAM,PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN REVIEW RESPONDENT/PETITIONER NOS. 1 TO 6/ RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 TO3:- 1. SATHJITH V.H., SOORYAHARI, KURUMANDAL, PARAVOOR KOLLAM. 2. P. JAYASINGH, BHARANAZHIKOM, KONGAL, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. 3. MANI K.R., LETHA MANDIRAM, KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. 4. VIJAYACHANDRAN, MAVILA, KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVOOR,KOLLAM 5. ANILKUMAR G.,GOPINIVAS, KURUMANDAL-B, KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. 6. VASUDEVAN, UTHRADOM, KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. 7. SHAJU S, ADVOCATE, RAJASADAN BUILDING, WEST OF COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM (RETURNING OFFICER, S.N.V, SAMAJAM). 8. SAJAN S, R.S. VILLA, KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. 9. ABHILASH H, THUSHARA, KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVOOR KOLLAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, ALONG WITH R.P NO.607 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== R.P. Nos. 526 and 607 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 13553 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009. ORDER R.P. No. 526 of 2009 is filed by the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 13553 of 2009 and R.P. No. 607 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners in the said writ petition. I heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties. 2. Adv. Shri. C. Rajendran made the following submissions in support of R.P. No. 526 of 2009:- The 4th respondent is actually a public trust in respect of which a scheme was settled by the Sub Court, Kollam. But in the opening paragraph of the judgment dated 26.05.2009 in the writ petition, it is stated that the 4th respondent Samajam is a charitable society registered under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literacy, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. Election to the post of manager of the school is to be made by the R.P. Nos. 526 & 607 of 2009 : 2 : governing body of the Samajam consisting of 21 members. So, the said governing body should be treated as the governing body of the school. If so, the conclusion reached in the judgment dated 26.05.2009 is erroneous. 3. Adv. Shri. Harish Gopinath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petition made the following submissions in support of the R.P. No. 607 of 2009:- Rule 8 of Chapter III KER interdict the appointment of a person connected with the management of the educational institution. The words 'if any' occurring in sub- rule 1 of Rule 8 of Chapter III of KER applies to corporate educational agency in view of Rule 2 of Chapter III KER as per which every corporate management should have a managing body. There cannot be any corporate management without a managing body for the school. 'Educational Agency' as defined under Section 2(2) means any person or a body of persons permitted to establish and R.P. Nos. 526 & 607 of 2009 : 3 : maintain any private school under the Kerala Education Act. So, when the educational agency is a body of persons, it should necessarily have a managing body for the educational institution owned by such body of persons without which Rule 2 of Chapter III KER will have no meaning. 4. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions except those made regarding the legal status of the samajam. No doubt, the judgment in the writ petition proceeds on the footing that the 4th respondent Samajam is a charitable society registered under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literacy, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. When the writ petition was argued, a specific query was put by the court as to whether the Samajam is a charitable society registered under the aforesaid Act. The counsel appearing for all the parties including the 4th respondent samajam unanimously submitted that it is a charitable society. That is how the R.P. Nos. 526 & 607 of 2009 : 4 : above observation in the judgment came to be made. It is now admitted by all that it is a public trust in respect of which a scheme was settled by the Sub Court, Kollam under Section 92 C.P.C. Therefore, the statement in the judgment that the 4th respondent Samajam is a charitable society, will have to be read as the 4th respondent is a public trust which is registered under the Travancore Cochin Literacy, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. This change, however, does not affect the merits of the decision. 5. With regard to R.P. No. 526 of 2009, what is now submitted before this Court is only a reiteration of what the counsel for the 4th respondent submitted before this Court earlier as occurring in paragraph 6 of the judgment. The submission then also was that the educational institution namely, the S.N.V. Girls High School was administered by a managing committee of the Samajam. The said contention was repelled by this Court as per the judgment sought to be reviewed. R.P. Nos. 526 & 607 of 2009 : 5 : 6. Now coming to the submissions made in R.P. No. 607 of 2009, going by Section 2(2) of the Kerala Educational Act, the educational agency in this case is the 4th respondent in the writ petition, namely, the S.N.V Samajam. What Rule 2 of Chapter III KER says is only that the educational agency which owns the educational institution, shall have a managing body. The requirement under Clause b of Rule 2 of Chapter III KER is that the rules approved by the Director should prescribe the manner in which the managing body shall be elected or approved etc. The contention that the educational institution itself is governed by the managing body, cannot be countenanced. Going by the definition of 'educational agency' it is the Samajam which owns the educational institution namely S.N.V Girls High School which is a corporate management within the meaning of Rule 1 of Chapter III KER. Therefore, the said provision is that the educational agency which runs the institution shall have a managing body. It does not insist R.P. Nos. 526 & 607 of 2009 : 6 : that the school should have a managing body. The managing body referred to in Rule 2 of Chapter III is the managing body of the educational agency (which is the samajam in this case) and not the managing body of the educational institution. Therefore, the interdict under sub- Rule 2 of Rule 8 of Chapter III KER was not attracted in this case. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error of law apparent on the face of record so as to review the judgment sought to be reviewed. These review petitions are accordingly dismissed, subject to the change regarding the legal status of the samajam. Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv R.P. Nos. 526 & 607 of 2009 : 7 :