IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17962 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MOTTAMMAL KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.MOTTUMMAL KRISHNAN, PARAVOOR, P.O.PANAPUZHA MATHAMANGALAM BAZAR, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. 5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MADAI, KANNUR. 6. K.C.ROHINI AMMA, W/O.LATE KANNAN NAIR, PANAPPUZHA AMSOM, ERIUM DESOM, P.O.ERIUM, KANNUR DIST. 7. K.P.MOHAMMED ASHRAF, URDU TEACHER ERIUM VIDYAMITHRAM U.P.SCHOOL KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 17962 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 19th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, I do not think that it is necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Heard learned Government Pleader who took notice for the official respondents. 2. Erium Vidyamithram School is an aided U.P.School. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner and nine others established the school in the year 1954. It is further stated that they acquired the rights as per document No. 714 of 1954 of SRO, Mathamangalam. It is stated that Kannan Nair was one among the nine persons. The sixth respondent herein is the widow of Kannan Nair. It would appear that the sixth respondent herein was approved as the manager of the school. It would further appear that a civil suit as O.S.No. 64 of 2000 is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur for a declaration that K.C. Rohini Amma, the sixth respondent herein, is not authorised or empowered to act as the manager of the Eriyam Vidya Mithram U.P. School . There is also a prayer for restraining the sixth respondent herein (1st defendant in the suit) by way of consequential injunction from acting as the manager. The further prayer in the plaint is for a mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant (6th respondent herein) to convene a meeting of the co-owners, who are members of the educational agency. It is stated that O.S.No.64 of 2000 is pending disposal. It is W.P.(C) No. 17962 OF 2008 2 also stated that the petitioner had approached this court earlier with the Writ Petition No. 20616 of 2004 and as per the directions in the judgment in that case, the Assistant Educational Officer had conducted an enquiry concerning the allegations against the Manager. The Assistant Educational Officer accordingly took a decision and passed Ext. P3 order dated 17.11.2007. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “On verification of the copy of the Registered deed No. 1786 dated 13.08.92, produced by the present manager, Smt. K.C. Rohiniamma, it is found that this deed is only a partition deed among the legal heirs of late K.P. Kannan Nair, former manager, in which the school and property managed by late Kannan Nair was transferred to Smt. Rohiniamma, wife of late Kannan Nair,. It is also noticed that it was based on the deed that the change of management in favour of Smt. K.C. Rohiniamma was approved by the then Assistant Educational Officer, Madayi. Based on the above, it is convinced that the petition filed by Sri Mottammal Kunhiraman and others are not baseless. Hearing the arguments of both sides and based on the judgment in W.P.(C)No.20616/04 dated 14.07.2004, this office had taken a decision on 5.11.05 in file No. KDis .113/05 that the fresh appointments in Eriam Vidyamithram UP School , except the incumbents who have legal claim under the provisions in KER, need not be approved, till a decision is taken in O.S.No. 64/2000 by the Hon'ble Munsiff's Court, Payyannur. In the above circumstances, the approval of appointment of Sri Muhammed Ashraf K.P. as Urdu teacher at Eriam Vidyamithram UPS w.e.f. 4.06.07 is hereby rejected. “ 3. Ext. P3 order was appealled against before the District Educational Officer, W.P.(C) No. 17962 OF 2008 3 who passed Ext.P4 order dated 19.04.2008 holding that since a final decision is not taken in the civil suit so far, there cannot be any bar in the appointment of teachers and in the approval of appointments. The petitioner has challenged Ext. P4 order in Ext. P5 appeal filed by him before the Director of Public Instructions. It is stated that Ext. P5 appeal is pending disposal. 4. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “i) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P4 as erroneous, unjust, illegal and arbitrary. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from approving any appointment made by respondent no.6 in Erium Vidyamithram U.P.School. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision in Ext. P5 revision within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; iv) to declare that no appointments made by the 6th respondent in Erium Vidyamithram U.P.School during the pendency of the dispute shall be approved by the Educational Officers; v) to issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. “ 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the time being the petitioner is pressing only the relief No.(iii). 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the Director of Public Instructions to dispose of Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously and at any rate within a period of three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and other affected W.P.(C) No. 17962 OF 2008 4 parties, if any. The petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the affected parties, if any, would be free to put forward their contentions in respect of the matter before the Director of Public Instructions. Since notice was not issued to respondent Nos. 6 and 7, the petitioner shall send a copy of this judgment separately to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by registered post and shall produce proof of the same before the Director of Public Instructions well in advance before taking Ext. P5 appeal for hearing. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk