Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 773 (KER)

MANOJ MATHEW v. STATE OF KERALA

2025-03-28

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

body2025
JUDGMENT : The petitioner and the 6 th respondent in WP(C) No.6679 of 2021 are stated to be the joint owners of a property measuring 1 acre comprised in Sy. No.705/1-2 of Pooyapally Village which houses the Mar Gregorious Memorial Lower Primary School (MGM LP School), an aided school, on the strength of a Will bearing No.46/1992 of the SRO, Oyoor and also, the judgment and decree dated 23.7.2009 in O.S.No.424/2003 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kottarakara. It is submitted that, originally, the petitioner's grandfather C.M.Geevarghese was the owner and manager of MGM LP School, who transferred the ownership and managership to his wife Aleyamma as per a gift deed bearing No.385/1969 on the file of the SRO, Pooyapally, which was duly approved by the educational authorities. 2. The petitioner contends that even before Ext.P1 decree, the 6 th respondent had submitted an application on 14.8.2003 before the 5 th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer, Veliyam, requesting a change of management of the school in question in his name, as per Ext.P2 application. The 5 th respondent had rejected the Ext.P2 application, directing the 6 th respondent to submit a fresh application before the 2 nd respondent, Director of General Education through Ext.P3 order dated 24.8.2004. 3. The 6 th respondent challenged Ext.P3 order in WP(C) No.26318/2004, which was disposed of through Ext.P4 judgment directing the 6 th respondent to avail the statutory remedies. Though W.A.No.2359/2007 was filed against the judgment, the same was dismissed as per Ext.P5 judgment. The 6 th respondent, thereafter, moved the Government which led to Ext.P6 order directing the 6 th respondent to prepare a bye law for the management of the school and to get it approved by the authorities concerned, which was also challenged by him by filing WP(C) No.19786/2009, in which this Court passed Ext.P7 judgment on 23.3.2017 directing the Deputy Director of Education to dispose of the representation preferred by the 6 th respondent with notice to all the parties. 4. The writ petitioner contends that the 3 rd respondent did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in total violation of the directions in Ext.P7 judgment and without providing a copy of the representation which was being considered, was proceeding with the matter, which made the petitioner prefer a representation dated 3.7.2017 before the 3 rd respondent, marked as Ext.P8. The 3 rd respondent, in the meantime, issued Ext.P9 communication dated 3.7.2017, enclosing a copy of the draft bye law submitted by the 6 th respondent. The petitioner again submitted a representation on 10.7.2017 requesting to provide an opportunity for hearing as directed in Ext.P7 judgment also pointing out the mistakes in the draft bye law supplied to him and prepared by the 6 th respondent. 5. The petitioner had also forwarded Ext.P10 draft bye law he prepared through the said representation. The 3 rd respondent passed orders on 18.9.2017, Ext.P11 again relegating the matter to the 5 th respondent-AEO with a direction to the parties to submit attested bye laws for approval after considering the suggestions of the writ petitioner and by attempting a conciliation. The 5 th respondent had prepared a report dated 9.11.2017 as regards the hearing conducted on 3.11.2017 and issued a copy of the same to the petitioner, marked as Ext.P12, which shows that the writ petitioner had demanded the partition of the school premises before the approval of the bye law. The writ petitioner disputes having made such a demand and submits that all he demanded was to demarcate the boundary between the MGM LP School and the St.Thomas High School, run by another agency. 6. In the meanwhile, the 6 th respondent approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.32963/2017, which was disposed of through Ext.P13 judgment on 28.11.2017, directing the Assistant Educational Officer to dispose of the representation preferred by him. The petitioner submits that no notice was issued by the 5 th respondent and also, the copy of the representation was not served on him. On noticing that the 5 th respondent was proceeding, the petitioner submitted Ext.P14 representation on 2.2.2018 requesting to provide a copy of the representation. The petitioner had again submitted a representation on 13.2.2018 requesting an opportunity for a hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.6515/2018, seeking a direction to the official respondents to dispose of the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 therein after demarcating the properties mentioned above. Despite the request of the petitioner to provide a copy of the representation preferred by the 6 th respondent, the same was not done. Ext.P17 order was passed on 19.9.2018, through which the 6 th respondent was appointed as a temporary manager till a bye law was approved. Ext.P17 is challenged in WP(C) No. 33721/2018. 7. Despite the request of the petitioner to provide a copy of the representation preferred by the 6 th respondent, the same was not done. Ext.P17 order was passed on 19.9.2018, through which the 6 th respondent was appointed as a temporary manager till a bye law was approved. Ext.P17 is challenged in WP(C) No. 33721/2018. 7. The petitioner has preferred WP(C) No.6679/2021 mainly contending that the 6 th respondent cannot be made even the temporary manager going by the interdiction placed in Rule 8(2) of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Act and Rules , 1959, as he is permanently employed as Additional Manager CNG (O&M) at Indraprastha Gas Ltd., South Delhi. This is a company owned and controlled by the Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL), the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and the Government of NCT of Delhi. The prayer in WP(C) No.6679/2021 is to declare that the 6 th respondent is disqualified for the reasons stated above and also to appoint the petitioner as the Manager of the MGM LP School and to approve the same. There is also a prayer to dispose of Ext.P22 representation, which is submitted before respondents 2 to 5. 8. Ext.P22 raises a question of disqualification of the 6 th respondent which has to be considered in the first instance by the 5 th respondent- Assistant Educational Officer with notice to the 6 th respondent and other affected parties, if any, as well and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules . A copy of Ext.P22 has to be served on the 6 th respondent and other parties before a final decision is taken on Ext.P22. The 5 th respondent shall pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 9. As regards the relief sought in WP(C) No.33721/2018, namely quashing of Ext.P17, the petitioner's specific contention is that a copy of the representation preferred by the 6 th respondent was not supplied to the writ petitioner despite specific requests made in that regard. There is no denial of the above averment by the official respondents. Given the above, Ext.P17 in WP(C) No.33721/2018 is also quashed. There is no denial of the above averment by the official respondents. Given the above, Ext.P17 in WP(C) No.33721/2018 is also quashed. There will be a direction to the 5 th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer to reconsider the issue decided in Ext.P17 with notice to the writ petitioner and the 6 th respondent and other affected parties, if any, and after providing a copy of the representation preferred by the 6 th respondent which led to the passing of the Ext.P17 order. A decision shall be taken on the subject matter of Ext.P17 within two months. 10. Till orders are passed as directed above, the arrangement made in Ext.P17 or Ext.P20, whichever is in force, will continue to operate. However, it is made clear that the 6 th respondent or anyone else officiating now cannot make any appointments in the school in question till a decision is taken as directed by this Court. It will be open to the writ petitioner, the 6 th respondent and any other affected parties to file their written submissions before the 5 th respondent, which shall be adverted to while passing orders as directed above. In view of the orders passed in the connected writ petitions, no order is required to be passed in WP(C) No.6515/2018. The Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.