JUDGMENT : [WP (C) Nos. 7202/2022, 7684/2022, 26364/2021] 1. All these writ petitions are filed by the petitioners raising a dispute with regard to the management of an Aided school namely, “I.T.K. Higher Secondary School” at Cherukulamba, Malappuram District. The petitioners are the legal heirs of erstwhile manager. (For convenience, WP(C) No.7202/2022 is taken as the leading case, and the Exhibits, as well as the parties to the litigation, are hereinafter referred to as per the sequences/ranks mentioned in the said writ petition, unless otherwise specifically mentioned). 2. The facts that led to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows: The school referred to above was established by late Sri K.V.K. Pookoya Thangal. He was the Manager and the school was thus under an individual education agency. The said Pookoya Thangal died on 23.4.2014. The petitioner in WP(C) No.7202/2022 is the son of the deceased and the petitioner in WP(C)No.26364/2021 and WP(C)No.7684/2022 is another son. Other legal heirs of the deceased are, the 5 th respondent, the wife of the deceased and respondents 7 to 10, the daughters of the deceased. The 6 th respondent in WP(C)No.7202/2022 is the petitioner in the other writ petitions. 3. After the death of the said Pookoya, a joint application was submitted by all the legal heirs of the deceased, to appoint the 5 th respondent as the Manager temporarily, for a period of one year. Accordingly, as per Ext.P2, the 5 th respondent was appointed as Manager till 22.04.2016. In the meantime, there occurred certain disputes between the legal heirs as to the management of the school and the management was taken over by the DEO as per Ext.P3 order passed by the 2 nd respondent. In the said order, it was also directed that, the 4 th respondent shall take necessary steps to conduct the election for the Manager subject to the final outcome of certain civil suits pending between the parties. However, as the 4 th respondent could not take a decision on this issue, due to lack of consensus amongst the legal representatives of the deceased Ext.P4 order was passed by the Additional Director (General) of Education directing the 3 rd respondent to convene a meeting of the legal representatives and to elect a Manager either through consensus or through election. Accordingly, Ext.P5 order was passed by the 3 rd respondent directing the DEO to continue as the manager, since no consensus could be arrived at by the parties concerned. 4. A challenge was raised against Ext.P5 before the Additional Director and it resulted in Ext.P6 order dated 20.11.2017. During the hearing before the Additional Director, out of the 7 legal representatives of the deceased, 4 persons requested to appoint the 8 th respondent as the Manager. Even though, in Ext.P6 order the 8 th respondent was declared as elected as the Manager based on the majority decision, it was noticed by the Additional Director that, as the management of the school is vested upon more than one person, a bye-law is absolutely necessary. Therefore, the parties were directed to submit a bye-law and to get approval for the same from the 3 rd respondent. Further directions were issued to the effect that, in case such a bye-law is submitted, the 3 rd respondent shall consider the same within one month and based on the same, the 8 th respondent shall be appointed as the Manager. The appropriate orders for approving the 8 th respondent as the Manager were also directed to be issued, on approval of the bye-law. 5. As against the said order, the 6 th respondent submitted a Revision Petition before the Government which was rejected as per Ext.P7 order dated 3.5.2018. Exhibit P7 order was implemented by the 4 th respondent DEO as per Ext.P8 order dated 7.5.2018 by which the 8 th respondent was appointed as the Manager for a period of three years. In Ext.P8 order, it was noticed that, as instructed in Ext.P6, a bye-law was prepared by the parties concerned in which, out of the 7 persons, 5 persons have signed. Exhibit P15 is the said bye-law prepared on 21.12.2017 and it was approved by the 3 rd respondent as per Ext.P16 order dated 04.01.2018. Accordingly, the 8 th respondent was continuing as the Manager. Exhibit P7 order was not challenged by anyone. 6. Exhibit P15 is the said bye-law prepared on 21.12.2017 and it was approved by the 3 rd respondent as per Ext.P16 order dated 04.01.2018. Accordingly, the 8 th respondent was continuing as the Manager. Exhibit P7 order was not challenged by anyone. 6. Later, the 6 th respondent submitted a request before the 2 nd respondent, (even before the tenure of appointment of the 8 th respondent, as per Ext P8 was not over), to appoint him as the manager contending that, some of the legal representatives have entered into some contracts with the 6 th respondent for transferring their shares to him. Therefore, it was contended that, the 6 th respondent became the holder of the major share in the properties and thus entitled to be appointed as the manager. 7. However, the said application was rejected by the 2 nd respondent as per Ext.P9 order dated 9.12.2020 on the reason that, the term of the 8 th respondent as the Manager will be over only by 6.5.2021. As against the same, the 6 th respondent submitted Ext.P10 revision petition before the Government. Thereafter, the 6 th respondent submitted WP(C) No.21840/2020 before this Court and it culminated in Ext.P11 judgment, wherein, this Court directed the Government to issue final orders on the management dispute within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The said direction was reiterated by this Court as per Ext.P12 judgment rendered on WP(C)No.11064/2021 filed by the 6 th respondent herein. 8. In compliance of Ext.P11 and P12 judgments, Ext.P13 order was passed by the 1 st respondent, wherein, it was observed that, the revision petition submitted by the 6 th respondent before the 1 st respondent was against an order (Ext.P9) which was passed by the Additional Director taking note of the fact that, at the relevant time, the tenure of appointment of the 8 th respondent as the Manager was not over and by the time, the revision petition filed against the said order came up for consideration before the Government, that term was over. Therefore, it was observed that, as the term of the approved manager is already over, the 6 th respondent can approach the 4 th respondent seeking his appointment and a further direction was issued to the 4 th respondent consider such application, if any, submitted by the 6 th respondent. 9. Therefore, it was observed that, as the term of the approved manager is already over, the 6 th respondent can approach the 4 th respondent seeking his appointment and a further direction was issued to the 4 th respondent consider such application, if any, submitted by the 6 th respondent. 9. Challenging the said order, the 6 th respondent submitted WP(C) No.26364/2021, which is one of the writ petitions here. As part of implementation of Ext.P13 order, the DEO conducted a hearing and Ext.P17 order was passed rejecting the request of the 6 th respondent and upheld the appointment the 8 th respondent as the Manager of the school on the basis of majority decision of the legal representatives of the deceased Pookoya Thangal, which was taken as per Ext.P15 bye-law that provided for election of the Manager on the basis of majority. Challenging Ext.P17 order the petitioner herein filed WP(C) No.7202/2022 and 6 th respondent submitted WP(C)No.7684/2022. 10. A detailed counter affidavit was submitted by the respondents 7 and 8 opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioners. 11. Heard Sri. P.Ravindran, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)Nos.7684/2022, 26364/2021, Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.7202/2022, Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 7 th and 8 th respondents and Sri. P. Jayaram, the learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent and Sri. Muhammed Jameel, the learned counsel appearing for the 9 th respondent and Smt. K.G. Sarojini, the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4. 12. Thus, the challenge raised in all these writ petitions is against Ext.P13 order passed by the Government directing the 6 th respondent to approach the 4 th respondent for his claim of appointment as the manger, Ext.P15 bye-law (which is Ext.P13 in WPC 7684/2022), and Ext.P17 order passed by the 4 th respondent in implementation of Ext.P13 order. 13. One of the main contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners is that since Ext.P12 and Ext.P13 judgments passed by this Court contained specific directions to the Government to finally decide the management dispute, it was not proper on the part of the Government to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P13, directing the 6 th respondent to approach the 4 th respondent. Thus, it was contended that, Ext.P13 order cannot be treated as a proper order issued in implementation of Ext.P11 and P12 judgments in letter and spirit. 14. However, while considering the said contention, the crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, what was pending before the Government at the relevant time, was a revision petition submitted by the 6 th respondent against Ext.P9 order by which the application submitted by the 6 th respondent to appoint him as the manager of the school was rejected by the Director General of Education. It is discernible from Ext.P9 order dated 9.12.2020 that, at the time when such application was submitted by the 6 th respondent, the term of the 8 th respondent as the manager was not over. As per Ext.P15 bye- law approved by the 3 rd respondent as per Ext.P16 order, the term of the Manager was for three years from the date of the approval of appointment. It was noticed in Ext.P9 order that, the 8 th respondent had taken charge as the manager on the basis of the approval granted to her only on 7.5.2018 and thus, her term was upto 06.05.2021. Besides, the appointment of the 8 th respondent as the Manager was on the basis of the majority decision taken by the members of the educational agency and the same was approved as per Ext.P8 order. Thus, the matter pending before the Government was the revision petition submitted by the 6 th respondent as against Ext.P9 order, which rejected the prayer of the 6 th respondent to appoint him as the manager, instead of the approved manager, the 8 th respondent.Of course, it is true that, in Exts. P11 and P12 judgments, directions were issued by this Court, to find a resolution to the management disputes between the parties. The important aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, at the relevant time, the only dispute that was brought before the Government relating to the management disputes was the rejection of the request made by the 6 th respondent for appointing him as the manager. The important aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, at the relevant time, the only dispute that was brought before the Government relating to the management disputes was the rejection of the request made by the 6 th respondent for appointing him as the manager. The order which was impugned in the revision petition was passed by the Director of Education taking note of the fact that, the request of the petitioner to appoint him as the manager could not have been considered, as the term of the approved manager was not over. By the time, the revision came up for consideration before the Government, the term of the 8 th respondent, as the manager was over and the impediment noted by the Director of Education was not in existence. Thus, there was a change in circumstances, and hence, the dispute raised by the petitioner ought to have been considered by the original authority afresh. The Ext.P13 order was passed in such circumstances and I do not find that the said order is against the directions issued in Exts.P11 and P12 judgments. The observations made in the judgments referred to above, cannot be understood to mean that, those were intended to interfere with the right of the Government, to take a decision they find it appropriate and just, in the facts and circumstances of the case, by exercising the revisional powers vested upon them. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P13 order while directing the 6 th respondent to approach the 4 th respondent for considering his request for appointment as the Manager. 15. The next question that arises for consideration is with regard to the sustainability of the reasons mentioned in Ext.P17 order passed by the 4 th respondent. One of the grounds raised by the petitioners is that, the Ext.P15 bye-law cannot be treated as legally sustainable, in view of the fact that, all the members of the educational agency have not signed therein. To support the said contention, Ext.P14 judgment was also relied on. 16. First of all, Ext.P14 judgment cannot be treated as a decision which lays down a proposition that, all the members of the educational agency has to sign the bye-laws. The factual position dealt with in Ext.P14 was completely different. To support the said contention, Ext.P14 judgment was also relied on. 16. First of all, Ext.P14 judgment cannot be treated as a decision which lays down a proposition that, all the members of the educational agency has to sign the bye-laws. The factual position dealt with in Ext.P14 was completely different. In the said decision, the bye-law was never approved by the competent authority and the request of the petitioner therein to be appointed as the manager was rejected due to absence of a valid bye-law. Of course it was observed therein that all the legal heirs have not joined in the preparation of bye- law. However, the consequences of the same and its legal impact, were not considered in the said judgment. The question that was under consideration in Ext.P14 was whether is it proper for this court to direct the Educational Officer to conduct an election for appointing the manager, among the legal heirs of the deceased-Manager. It was held that, such a direction could not have been issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and when there is dispute between the legal heirs in respect of the management of the school or preparation of the bye-law, necessarily it is a matter that will have to be decided by an appropriate civil court. Thus, the observations made by this Court in the said judgment is to the effect that, the dispute regarding the bye-law is a matter to be decided by the competent civil court and not by the Educational authorities. Therefore, while applying the principles laid down in the said decision, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings entered in Ext.P17 order and the reasons on which such findings are entered into. It is to be noted that, in Ext.P17, the 4 th respondent found that, Ext.P15 bye-law is already approved and it is not set aside by any competent authority and the clauses contained therein enable the parties concerned to appoint any person among the members, as the manager of the school based on a majority decision. Thus, it was found that, so long as such a bye-law is in existence, the decision taken by them could not have been interfered with. I do not find any illegality in the reasoning adopted as above. 17. Thus, it was found that, so long as such a bye-law is in existence, the decision taken by them could not have been interfered with. I do not find any illegality in the reasoning adopted as above. 17. As far as the contention raised by the petitioners that Ext.P15 bye-law is not legally sustainable, I am of the view that, the same cannot be entertained. First of all, the said contention was raised on the strength of the stipulation contained in Chapter III Rule 2 of KER which reads as follows: “Constitution of Corporate Management- In the case of institutions under corporate Educational Agency, the constitution of the Educational Agency to the extent and in so far as it relates to the management of any school must be subject to rules approved by the 1[Director] which should prescribe among other things (a) the manner in which the proprietary body shall carry out its functions relating to the management of the institutions and (b) the manner in which the managing body shall be elected or appointed, the conditions and tenure of their office and their duties and powers with respect to the management of the institution. In the case of aided schools, the manner of appointment of managers also shall be specified in the rules. Such rules shall not be against the provisions of the Education Act, the rules issued under it, or any other rules passed by the Department or the Government. Any change made in such rules subsequently shall be subject to approval by the 1[Director]before becoming operative.” Indeed, the said provision prescribes for framing the rules governing the manner in which the proprietary body shall carry out its functions relating to the management of the institutions and the manner in which the managing body shall be elected or appointed. However, nowhere it is mentioned that, such rules shall be prescribed by all the members of the educational agency unanimously. Moreover, it also does not contain any prohibition in preparing a bye-law based on majority decision. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner against such bye-law by placing reliance upon Rule 2 Chapter III of KER cannot be entertained under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. If any of the members of the education agency has any grievance with regard to the preparation of bye-law, it comes within the civil rights of such person. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner against such bye-law by placing reliance upon Rule 2 Chapter III of KER cannot be entertained under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. If any of the members of the education agency has any grievance with regard to the preparation of bye-law, it comes within the civil rights of such person. Therefore, the same can be resolved by a competent civil court in a properly instituted suit by the aggrieved party and the said adjudication cannot be done in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.This view is fortified by the observations in Ext P14 judgment. 18. Another ground highlighted by the 6 th respondent, the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 7684/2022 and 26364/2022 is that, as he is the major share holder of the school properties, he must be appointed as the manager. This contention was rightly rejected by the authorities concerned. First of all, as of now, there is an approved bye-law in terms of Chapter III Rule 2 of KER, which provides the mode of appointment of the manager. As per the same, the appointment is based on majority decision of the members of the education agency and in this case, the appointment is as per the said terms. Therefore, so long such a bye-law is in force, the 6 th respondent cannot insist for any other mode of appointment; based on shareholding or otherwise. Besides, the 6 th respondent also could not demonstrate his right to claim the managership on the strength of the shareholding, based on any statutory provision or any other enabling clauses. It is also to be noted in this regard that, even the claim of the 6 th respondent that, he is major share holder is not established as of now, and the said matter is now pending before the civil court. It is to be noted that, the claim of the 6 th respondent that some of the legal representatives of the erstwhile manager had transferred their respective shares in the properties in his favour on the basis of certain contracts, is disputed by the said persons and the enforcement of such agreements are matters now pending before the civil court. Therefore, so long as the said issues are settled, it cannot be concluded that the 6 th respondent is the major share holder. Therefore, so long as the said issues are settled, it cannot be concluded that the 6 th respondent is the major share holder. As far as the validity of the Ext P15 bye-law is concerned, as observed above, if any of the parties have any grievance it is for them to establish their right in respect of the same by approaching a competent civil court. The resolution of the such a dispute/claim, is beyond the scope of the machineries contemplated under the Kerala Education Act and the rules framed thereunder. 19. There is yet another reason on which the challenge raised against the bye-law cannot be entertained at the instance of the petitioner in WP(C)No.7202/2022. As far as the said petitioner is concerned, he had already signed the said bye- law and he has no case that, he happened to sign the same due to any compulsion, fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. The justification mentioned by him in the writ petition is that, at the relevant time, he was not aware of the legal position that, all members of the educational agency must have signed the bye-law. However, I do not find it as a justifiable reason that enables him to disown his participation in the preparation of Ext.P15 bye-law. It is one of the basic principles of law that the ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. Therefore, after signing the bye law voluntarily and consciously, the petitioner cannot now turn around and challenge the bye-law and the decisions taken as per the terms of the bye-law. In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reasons to interfere with the orders impugned in these cases and accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners herein to pursue and invoke the civil remedies available to them before a competent civil court.