IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27680 of 2008(T)
1. A.PADMAVATHY, AGED 73 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. SMT.A.SOUMINI, W/O.DAMODARAN, RESIDING
6. SMT.A.BHARGAVI, W/O.C.V.NANU, RESIDING
7. SMT.A.VILASINI, W/O.KUMARAN,RESIDING AT
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI.R.SURENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/10/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.27680/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is presently the Manager of S.N.B.U.P
School, Vadakkumpad, Thalassery in Kannur District. His
father was the Manager of the School. After her father’s
death her mother succeeded in that position and continued
as Manager till 1989, when she expired. Thereafter the
rights over the school devolved on the 5 children of the
deceased couple. It would appear that, with the majority
support among the children, the petitioner was appointed as
Manager and that was challenged by the 6th respondent in
O.P.No.6666/1990 before this court and that O.P was
dismissed by Ext.P1 judgment.
2. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent
pursued the challenge before the AEO, who by Ext.P2
WP(C).No. 27680/08 2
rejected the challenge. Ext.P2 order was the subject
matter of WP(c).No.16936/2007 which was disposed of by
Ext.P3 judgment directing that the AEO shall reconsider
the claim of the 6th respondent. AEO thereupon
reconsidered the matter and passed Ext.P4 order holding
that the petitioner, the provisional manager cannot be
removed till the dispute among the legal heirs over the
management right of the school is finally settled.
3. Ext.P4 order was challenged before this court in
WP(c).No.24925/2007, which was disposed of by Ext.P5
judgment directing the DPI to consider the appeal that
was pending. The DPI there upon considered the appeal
and issued Ext.P7 authorizing the Deputy Director of
Education, Kannur to take a fresh decision on the issue,
after hearing all concerned. Against Ext.P7, the petitioner
filed Ext.P8 revision before the Government. In Ext.P9
judgment in WP(c).No.478/2008 this court directed the
Government to consider the revision with notice to all
WP(C).No. 27680/08 3
concerned.
4. Accordingly Ext.P10 hearing notice was issued and
Ext.P11 order was issued by the Government. The
relevant portion of Ext.P11 is extracted below for
reference.
“In the above circumstances, Ext.P8 revision
petition filed by Smt. A. Padmavathy is
rejected and the proceedings read as Ist
paper above is upheld. Deputy Director of
Education, Kannur is also directed to appoint
a legal heir, nominated by majority of legal
heirs as Manager of the school until a bye-
law is framed and approved by the
educational authorities. This shall be done
after hearing all the legal heirs of late
K.P.Govindan and verifying the majority in a
foolproof manner. The court direction is
accordingly complied with.”
WP(C).No. 27680/08 4
5. It is this order that is challenged by the petitioner
in this writ petition.
6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that so long as Ext.P1, an inter-party
judgment between the petitioner and the 6th respondent,
has become final it is not open to either of the legal heirs
to seek his change of the petitioner’s provisional
managership.
7. I am not in a position to accept this contention.
As is evident from the facts as disclosed in Ext.P11, the
Manager has left behind 5 children and among them with
the majority support of three, the petitioner was appointed
as the provisional manager pending resolution of the
dispute among the legal heirs. Ext.P11 itself shows that
now one of the legal heirs, viz. Smt. Soumini withdrew her
from the group which supported the petitioner and is
supporting the group lead by the 6th respondent. Thus the
group opposing the petitioner has got the majority support
WP(C).No. 27680/08 5
now. It was taking into account these circumstances that
the Government have in Ext.P11 ordered that the Deputy
Director shall appoint a legal heir nominated by the
majority of the legal heirs as the Manager of the School
until a bye law is framed and is approved by the
Educational Authority. In my view, the view taken by the
Government is a fair and reasonable view and it does not
warrant interference at the hands of this court exercising
its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution.
8. The counsel for the petitioner referred to me
Ext.P1 judgment and with particular emphasis referred to
the sentence therein that the provisional approval to the
petitioner is not open to challenge. As I understand, the
effect of this sentence is only that the provisional approval
of the petitioner could not be challenged in a proceeding
under Article 226. On the other hand, if I understand this
sentence one conferring total immunity to his appointment
as provisional Manager, the next sentence in paragraph 5
WP(C).No. 27680/08 6
of Ext.P1 judgment, relegating the parties to peruse the
legal remedies will not carry any meaning. In this view of
the matter, I cannot understand Ext.P1 judgment as
conferring an absolute immunity to the provisional
appointment of the petitioner as Manager. On the whole, I
do not find any substance in the challenge raising against
Ext.P1.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(C).No. 27680/08 7