IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 526 of 2009(O)
1. PARAVOOR SREENARAYANA VILASOM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SATHJITH V.H., SOORYAHARI, KURUMANDAL,
... Respondent
2. P. JAYASINGH, BHARANAZHIKOM,
3. MANI K.R., LETHA MANDIRAM,
4. VIJAYACHANDRAN, MAVILA, KOTTAPPURAM,
5. ANILKUMAR G.,GOPINIVAS, KURUMANDAL,
6. VASUDEVAN, UTHRADOM, KOTTAPPURAM,
7. SHAJU S, ADVOCATE, RAJASADAN BUILDING,
8. SAJAN S, R.S. VILLA,
9. ABHILASH H, THUSHARA, KOTTAPPURAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :01/07/2009
O R D E R
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 :