Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2211 (KER)

P. Muhammed Shafi S/o Seethi v. State of Kerala

2025-08-18

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. 1. These appeals are filed under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, by the respective petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.33822 of 2023 and 30218 of 2024, challenging the common judgment dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions ended in dismissal. For convenience of reference, the parties to these writ appeals and the documents produced are referred to in this judgment as they were referred to in the impugned common judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as in W.A.No.593 of 2025, unless otherwise stated. 2. According to the appellant in Writ Appeal No.592 of 2025, he is one among the founder Trustees of the Shihab Thangal Educational and Charitable Trust (‘the Trust’ in short), which is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024. The trust was formed with an objective to establish educational institutions and to provide educational facilities to the poor children in backward areas. Ext.P1 is the Trust Deed registered as Document No.788 of 2011 before the Additional SRO, Kozhikode. The Trust purchased the A.M.U.P. School at Mampad, which is an aided School under the ownership and management of one Smt.Aminakkutty. From 20.04.2013 onwards, the School has been under the ownership, possession and control of the Trust. Though the appellant, who was appointed as the Manager as per Ext.P1 Trust Deed, should have been allowed to function as the Manager of the School, the former Manager of the School Smt.Aminakkutty was allowed to continue as the Manager without any right of ownership of the properties. This arrangement was made because the transfer of management from Smt.Aminakkutty to the Trust did not have the necessary approval of the educational authorities as required under the Rules. 2.1. Smt.Aminakkutty appointed the 5 th respondent Sri.K.Muhammed Ali, as the Manager of the School without any rights over its properties. By virtue of Ext.P2 order dated 13.08.2018, the appointment of the 5 th respondent was approved by the 4 th respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Nilambur. Against Ext.P2 order, the appellant filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer. That appeal was dismissed as per the order dated 21.12.2020 of the District Educational Officer. The appellant then took up the matter before the Government by filing Ext.P3 revision dated 10.03.2021. Against Ext.P2 order, the appellant filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer. That appeal was dismissed as per the order dated 21.12.2020 of the District Educational Officer. The appellant then took up the matter before the Government by filing Ext.P3 revision dated 10.03.2021. During the pendency of Ext.P3, the 2 nd respondent Director of General Education, by his order dated 10.05.2019, declined the application for transfer of the School in favour of the Trust on the ground that there were no approved Bye-Laws for the management of the School. The 5 th respondent, without any authority, thereafter prepared a Bye-Law and got it approved by the 3 rd respondent Deputy Director of Education, as per Ext.P4 order dated 07.08.2019. Ext.P4 order was also challenged by the appellant before the Government. 2.2. Since the appellant questioned these unauthorised acts of the 5 th respondent, the appellant was removed from the Trust without any notice and without assigning any valid reason. The appellant then filed O.S.No.2 of 2022 before the Sub Court, Manjeri, challenging the above decision of the Trust to expel him, and the same is still pending. The application of the 5 th respondent for transfer of management was rejected by the 2 nd respondent the Director of General Education, by Ext.P5 order dated 26.02.2021, stating that the transfer of the School was without obtaining prior permission of the 2 nd respondent. 2.3. Since the 1 st respondent did not take up Ext.P3 revision, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.10789 of 2021 before this Court, and as per judgment dated 23.09.2021, this Court directed the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P3 within three months. Pursuant to the above direction, the 1 st respondent issued Ext.P6 order dated 05.02.2022 setting aside Ext.P2 order approving the 5 th respondent as the Manager and Ext.P4 order approving the Bye-Laws of the School. As per Ext.P6 order, the Trust was permitted to submit a fresh application for the transfer of management of the School, complying with the directions in Circular No.GEDN-F2/85/2021-GDEN dated 24.11.2021. The 1 st respondent further directed the 4 th respondent, Assistant Educational Officer, to be in charge of the Manager of the School temporarily, and he had assumed charge as such. The 1 st respondent further directed the 4 th respondent, Assistant Educational Officer, to be in charge of the Manager of the School temporarily, and he had assumed charge as such. With regard to the internal disputes within the Trust, it was observed that the same are beyond the powers of the Government and have to be adjudicated by the appropriate Civil Court. 2.4. The 6 th respondent Trust challenged Ext.P6 order before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.6171 of 2022 and in that writ petition, Ext.P7 interim order dated 04.04.2022 was passed staying the operation of Ext.P6 order and permitting the petitioner therein to continue as Manager provisionally subject to the condition that he shall not make any appointment in the School till further orders of this Court. Later, by Ext.P8 judgment dated 05.04.2023, that writ petition was disposed of by setting aside Ext.P6 order and directing the 1 st respondent to reconsider the matter after hearing the appellant also. 2.5. Pursuant to the Ext.P8 judgment, the 1 st respondent issued Ext.P9 order dated 06.07.2023. The 1 st respondent proceeded as if the Bye-Laws of the Trust, which were submitted by the 5 th respondent, had been approved and that the contentions of the appellant against the same had been rejected by this Court. The appellant thereafter submitted Ext.P10 representation dated 25.07.2023, before the Government requesting to recall Ext.P9 order. Since Ext.P10 was not disposed of by the Government, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order dated 13.08.2018 of the 4 th respondent Assistant Educational Officer and Ext.P9 order dated 06.07.2023 of the 1 st respondent. The appellant has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 revision dated 10.03.2021 and Ext.P10 representation dated 25.07.2023 submitted by him, expeditiously. 3. The 5 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 filed a counter affidavit dated 13.11.2023, opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(f) documents. Paragraphs 3 to 13 of that counter affidavit read thus: “3. By Exhibit P-9, the Government have issued orders so as to regularize the transfer of management of the School. 3. The 5 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 filed a counter affidavit dated 13.11.2023, opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(f) documents. Paragraphs 3 to 13 of that counter affidavit read thus: “3. By Exhibit P-9, the Government have issued orders so as to regularize the transfer of management of the School. It is submitted that the same may not be interfered with, for the conduct of School itself would be instalemate once the said order goes. 4. It is evident from Exhibit P-1 deed that AMUP School, Mampad was purchased from one Aminakutty by the Shihab Thangal Educational and Charitable Trust. The Constitution of the Trust is evident from Exhibit P-1. Petitioner is no longer a member of the Trust. He has been removed from the Trust and it has been unanimously agreed to by the whole members. True copy of the minutes dated 11.06.2021 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-5(a). Petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same till date. 5. Pursuant to Exhibit P-9, the Director has made over the same and the original deeds of the School was made over to the AEO vide letter dated 18.09.2023. True copy of the letter No. E2/14106/2023/DGE dated 18.09.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-5(b). 6. Referring to Exhibit R-5(b) the AEO has addressed the Director requesting for formal orders over the change of management. True copy of the letter No. AEONBR/346/2023-F dated 11.10.2023 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-5(c). 7. It is submitted that the Constitution of Educational Agency has been approved by the Educational Officer. True copy of the Order No. A6/3872/2019 dated 19.08.2019 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-5(d). 8. As could be seen from Exhibit P-3, this deponent is the approved Manager of the School. The Trust meet held on 17.09.2019 reiterated its decision to continue this deponent as the Manager of the School. True copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 17.09.2019 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-5(e). 9. It is submitted that the Petitioner has not chosen to assail Exhibits R-5(a), R-5(b) and R-5(e) either before the Department or before the Government hitherto. 10. It is submitted that the contentions of the Petitioner over Exhibit P-2 were repelled by the DEO, Director and the Government. 9. It is submitted that the Petitioner has not chosen to assail Exhibits R-5(a), R-5(b) and R-5(e) either before the Department or before the Government hitherto. 10. It is submitted that the contentions of the Petitioner over Exhibit P-2 were repelled by the DEO, Director and the Government. It may be particularly noticed that Exhibit P-4 is not challenged by the Petitioner until this date. 11. AMUP School, Mampad is a minority Educational Institution. Its administration cannot be taken over by the Government, going by Section 14(9) and Chapter XX Rule 24 KER. It would appear from the pleadings of the Petitioner that he wants to take over the functions of the Manager by the AEO. True copy of the minority certificate issued by National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions dated 01.04.2013 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-5(f). 12. Petitioner may be unhappy with the administration of the School or having discomfort over the managership of this deponent. That by itself cannot be a reason to take over the management of the School. As on today Petitioner is not a member of the Trust. Therefore, he has no voice in the affairs of the School. As born out from Exhibit R-5(a) he is ceased to be a member of the Trust. He has not chosen to challenge the same. 13. It would appear that as against Exhibit P-9 Petitioner has moved Exhibit P-10 before the Minister. It is not at all a Statutory Petition. And, this Hon’ble Court may not be justified in directing the recipient of Exhibit P-10 to hear and dispose of the same. Since Exhibit P-9 was issued upon a Rule 92 Revision Petition, Exhibit P- IO is not maintainable under Rule 93 Chapter XIV A KER in the light of decisions reported in 2007 (2) KLT 325 , 2009 (3) KLT 650 and 2011 (3) KHC 778 etc.” 4. To the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th respondent, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 30.01.2024, producing therewith Exts.P12 and P13 documents. 5. The 6 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 filed a counter affidavit dated 06.08.2024. Paragraphs 1 to 4 of that counter affidavit read thus: “1. I am the General Secretary of the 6 th respondent Trust and its principal executive officer. 5. The 6 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 filed a counter affidavit dated 06.08.2024. Paragraphs 1 to 4 of that counter affidavit read thus: “1. I am the General Secretary of the 6 th respondent Trust and its principal executive officer. The Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside Exts.P2 and P9 orders and for a direction to consider Ext.P10 representation submitted by the petitioner. I have been impleaded to represent the Trust as its General Secretary. I have read and understood the Writ Petition and state as follows in reply thereto. All the averments and allegations are denied except those and to the extent that are specifically admitted hereunder. 2. I am appointed so as per Ext.P1 Trust Deed. The powers of the General Secretary have been enumerated in Para 15 of the deed. As per the terms of the Trust Deed the General Secretary shall convene all the meetings of trustees and maintain the minutes of the same. He shall be the custodian of all the records and properties of the Trust and handle the correspondence on behalf of the Trust. But unfortunately I have not been allowed to function properly and the entire matters relating to the Trust is being handled by the 5 th respondent. 3. As per Ext.P1 deed all the office bearers were appointed for a period of three years. But thereafter there were no elections or appointment of office bearers. The records of the Trust, including the minutes of the meetings, are in the custody of the 5 th respondent and he is retaining the same unauthorisedly. Though the General Secretary is empowered to convene the meetings it is submitted that regular meetings as required in the Trust deed were not properly convened. 4. It appears from the pleadings in the Writ Petition it appears that the 5 th respondent has been effecting correspondence with the departmental authorities on behalf of the Trust. It is submitted that as per Ext.P1 deed it is for the General Secretary to carry on such correspondence. The 5 th respondent has been acting as if he is the educational agency in respect of the School. I was not aware of the filing of W.P. (C)No.6171 of 2022 on behalf of the Trust.” 6. It is submitted that as per Ext.P1 deed it is for the General Secretary to carry on such correspondence. The 5 th respondent has been acting as if he is the educational agency in respect of the School. I was not aware of the filing of W.P. (C)No.6171 of 2022 on behalf of the Trust.” 6. In W.A.No.592 of 2025 also the 5 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 09.05.2025, inter alia raising some additional contentions, however, in the line of his contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition. 7. The 6 th respondent Trust in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 filed W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024, however, through another person claiming as its Secretary. In W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024, the appellant in Writ Appeal No.594 of 2025 pleaded that after the purchase of the School, the Trust permitted the erstwhile Manager to continue in the said post. Later, the trust appointed Sri.Muhammed Ali Kambarath, who is the 5 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 as the Manager and made an application for approval of his appointment without change of ownership of the properties. The said application was allowed by the order dated 13.08.2018 issued by the Assistant Educational Officer, and later an application was moved before the Director of General Education to ratify the transfer of management and School properties in accordance with Rule 5A of Chapter III of KER. But that application was rejected by the order dated 26.02.2021 of the Director of General Education, and it was confirmed by the Government as per the order dated 05.02.2022. The appellant in Writ Appeal No.594 of 2025 challenged these two orders before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.6171 of 2022. By the interim order dated 04.04.2022 in that writ petition, this Court stayed the direction to hand over the management of the School to the Assistant Educational Officer. Thereafter, by the judgment dated 05.04.2023 in W.P.(C)No.6171 of 2022, this Court directed the Government to reconsider the matter in accordance with the Circular dated 24.11.2021. Accordingly, the Government reconsidered the matter afresh and permitted the 5 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 to continue as Manager with further direction to the Trust to submit an application for regularisation of the transfer of ownership of the School properties and the management, before the Director of General Education. Thereafter, the Trust submitted a petition dated 19.07.2023 before the Director of General Education. Thereafter, the Trust submitted a petition dated 19.07.2023 before the Director of General Education. However, no orders have been passed in that application. Subsequently, the Director of General Education returned all the documents submitted along with the application dated 19.07.2023 without enclosing the order granting regularisation. Therefore, the Assistant Educational Officer issued a letter dated 11.10.2023 to furnish a copy of the order. But even after ten months of issuance of that letter, no action was taken by the Director of General Education. In those circumstances, the appellant in W.A.No.594 of 2025 filed W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Director of General Education to take a decision on its application dated 19.07.2023, which was marked as Ext.P14 in that writ petition. The appellant has also sought for a declaration that in view of the direction contained in GO dated 06.07.2023 [Ext.P13 in W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024 and Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023], the 5 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 is entitled to continue as the Manager of the School with all attendant powers till the issuance of an order in the representation dated 19.07.2023 submitted by the appellant before the Director of General Education. The appellant further sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents in that writ petition to provide the user ID and password to operate the SAMANWAYA Online portal in respect of the School forthwith; a declaration that in view of the direction in the GO dated 06.07.2023, the 5 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 had continued as the Manager of the School and the decisions taken by him are liable to be ratified and also to permit the present Manager of the School to fill up the existing vacancies in the School. 7.1. The 4 th respondent District Educational Officer filed a counter affidavit dated 30.01.2025 in W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024 referring to various orders passed by this Court and the educational authorities in the dispute pertaining to the Managership of the School in question. 8. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of that judgment, which contain the reasoning of the learned Single Judge for the dismissal of the writ petitions, read thus: “17. 8. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed both the writ petitions. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of that judgment, which contain the reasoning of the learned Single Judge for the dismissal of the writ petitions, read thus: “17. In Ext.P9, the 5 th respondent was permitted to act as Manager only as a stopgap arrangement and that too for a short period. The petitioner being removed from the Trust and the appointment of the 5 th respondent being a temporary arrangement, I am not inclined to interfere with Exts.P2 and P9 orders. 18. As regards W.P.(C) No.30218/2024 filed by the Trust, the entitlement of the 5 th respondent to continue as Manager would depend upon the transfer of ownership and management of the School in favour of the Trust. The proposal is pending before the Government. Therefore, no declaration can be granted to the 6 th respondent-Trust to the effect that 5 th respondent is entitled to continue as the Manager of the School.” 9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.592 of 2025, the learned counsel for respondent No.5 in that writ appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.594 of 2025 and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that Ext.P3 revision petition filed by the appellant was initially allowed by Ext.P6 order dated 05.02.2022 of the 1 st respondent. But, after the setting aside of that order by Ext.P8 judgment dated 05.04.2023 in W.P.(C)No.6171 of 2022 with a direction to reconsider the same, no further orders have been issued on Ext.P3. Even while passing Ext.P9 order dated 06.07.2023 by the 1 st respondent, there is no whisper regarding Ext.P3 revision. Therefore, the learned Single Judge went wrong in holding that Ext.P3 revision was rejected by the 1 st respondent. There is no order appointing the 5 th respondent as the Manager of the School by the Trust. In fact, the 5 th respondent has fabricated the documents to claim the post of Manager. The 5 th respondent effected appointment of Teachers in the School, in violation of Ext.P7 interim order dated 04.04.2022 issued in the writ petition. There is no order appointing the 5 th respondent as the Manager of the School by the Trust. In fact, the 5 th respondent has fabricated the documents to claim the post of Manager. The 5 th respondent effected appointment of Teachers in the School, in violation of Ext.P7 interim order dated 04.04.2022 issued in the writ petition. The finding in the impugned judgment that Ext.P3 revision petition was rejected by the 1 st respondent will give the impression that Ext.P2 order dated 13.08.2018 approving the 5 th respondent as Manager is affirmed. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there may be a direction to the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P3 revision on merits, and till that date, the status quo may be directed to be maintained. 11. The learned counsel for the 5 th respondent would submit that the appellant cannot file a revision petition directly to the Government against the order of the 4 th respondent Assistant Educational Officer, since, as per Chapter III Rule 4(3) of KER an appeal is provided to the Director of General Education against the order of the Assistant Educational Officer. Therefore, Ext.P3 revision itself is not maintainable. Apart from that, though it is not specifically mentioned while passing Ext.P9 order, the 1 st respondent considered all the contentions that were raised in Ext.P3 revision. Hence, no interference is needed to the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 12. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the direction in Ext.P8 judgment was to consider the revision filed by the appellant based on the Circulars. The 1 st respondent considered all those aspects in Ext.P9 order, including the pendency of the Civil Suit between the parties. Though it is not specifically mentioned, the contentions in Ext.P3 revision have also been considered by the Government while passing Ext.P9 order. 13. The dispute between the parties in both these cases pertains to the management of the School under the Trust. When the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 seeks to quash Ext.P9 order of the 1 st respondent, permitting the 5 th respondent to continue as Manager for three months, with a direction to approve the transfer of management of the School within that period, in W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024 the Trust is seeking a declaration that the 5 th respondent is entitled to continue as a Manager. 14. 14. The management of the School came into the control of the Trust with effect from 20.04.2013. The appointment of the 5 th respondent as manager with effect from 01.07.2018 was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer as per Ext.P2 order dated 13.08.2018. That order was challenged by the appellant in Ext.P3 revision petition before the Government. Though the revision petition was initially allowed by Ext.P6 order, by Ext.P8 judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside Ext.P6 since the said order was passed without considering the Circular dated 24.11.2021 issued by the 1 st respondent. Thereafter, Ext.P9 order was passed by the 1 st respondent. According to the 5 th respondent, Ext.P3 revision is not maintainable before the Government, since an appeal provision is provided against Ext.P2 order under Rule 4 of Chapter III of KER. 15. Rule 4 of Chapter III of KER reads thus: “4. Approval of appointment of Managers - (1) The Educational Officers shall be competent to approve the appointment of Managers by Educational Agencies and to approve changes in the personnel of the Managers. (2) If the Educational Agencies have schools in more than one Educational District within a Revenue District the appointment of Managers and changes in the personnel of the Managers may be approved by the Deputy Director (Education) having jurisdiction in the Revenue District. If the Educational Agencies have schools in more than one Revenue District the appointment of managers and changes in the personnel of the Managers may be approved by the Director. (2A) The approval of appointment of Managers and changes in the personnel of the Managers under sub-rules (1) and (2) above shall take effect from the date of actual assumption of charge of the management specified in the order of approval issued by the competent authorities concerned. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Educational Officer under sub-rule (1) or of the Deputy Director (Education) under sub-rule (2) may within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order prefer an appeal to the Director. (4) Government may, on their own motion or otherwise, revise any order passed by the Director” 16. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Educational Officer under sub-rule (1) or of the Deputy Director (Education) under sub-rule (2) may within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order prefer an appeal to the Director. (4) Government may, on their own motion or otherwise, revise any order passed by the Director” 16. While going through Rule 4(3) of Chapter III of KER, we notice that any person aggrieved by an order of the Educational Officer under sub-rule (1), may, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the Director. Rule 4(4) of Chapter III of KER provides revision to the Government against an order passed by the Director. It is true that against Ext.P2 order of the 4 th respondent, the appellant preferred Ext.P3 revision directly to the Government. However, by Ext.P8 judgment, this Court directed the Government to reconsider Ext.P3 revision. The parties conceded to Ext.P8 judgment and participated in the proceedings before the Government. Therefore, there is no necessity to once again go back to the stage of Rule 4(3) of Chapter III of KER. While going through Ext.P9 order of the 1 st respondent, we notice that even though by Ext.P8 judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court set aside Ext.P6 order, and directed to reconsider the matter, there is no whisper about Ext.P3 revision in Ext.P9 order. In such circumstances, we find force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.592 of 2025 that Ext.P9 order passed by the 1 st respondent is without taking into account the directions in Ext.P8 judgment, in its proper perspective. 17. From the materials on record, we notice that by the interim order dated 29.08.2024 in W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024, the learned Single Judge permitted the 5 th respondent in W.A.No.592 of 2025 namely, Sri.Muhammed Ali K. to continue as the Manager of the School for a period of two months. Subsequently, by the order dated 12.09.2024 in I.A. No.2 of 2024 in that writ petition, the learned Single Judge modified the interim order dated 29.08.2024 to the effect that the 5 th respondent Muhammed Ali K. shall not be permitted to make any appointment or take any policy decisions in any matter concerning the School. Subsequently, by the order dated 12.09.2024 in I.A. No.2 of 2024 in that writ petition, the learned Single Judge modified the interim order dated 29.08.2024 to the effect that the 5 th respondent Muhammed Ali K. shall not be permitted to make any appointment or take any policy decisions in any matter concerning the School. It was also clarified that the appointment made by the 5 th respondent after Ext.P11 order, shall not be approved without obtaining orders from this Court. 18. On 10.04.2025 , when W.A.No.594 of 2025 was taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader submitted that approval was granted to the 5 th respondent Sri.Muhammed Ali K. to act as a Manager for three months, and there is currently no approved Manager. In view of that submission, this Court directed that if there is no approved Manager now functioning, the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO) shall continue to act as the Manager till further orders are passed. Subsequently, the 5 th respondent filed IA No.1 of 2025 in W.A.No.592 of 2025 seeking modification of the order dated 10.04.2025 and to permit him to continue as Manager of the School, and to discharge his duties of Manager. The relief sought in that interlocutory application was opposed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in WA No.592 of 2025. By the order dated 30.5.2025, this Court adjourned the said interlocutory application for a detailed hearing. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, W.A.No.592 of 2025 is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2025 in W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023. Consequently, W.P.(C)No.33822 of 2023 is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P9 order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the 1 st respondent and the 1 st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, after giving notice to the parties and considering their rival contentions, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Considering the dispute involved in these writ appeals, we direct the Assistant Educational Officer to act as the Manager of the School till the decision is being taken by the 1 st respondent as directed above. In view of the above direction, W.A.No.594 of 2025 stands dismissed.