Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala & Others, W.A. Nos. 1276 & 1307 of 2022

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA MONDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1944** ## **WA NO. 1276 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2022 IN WP(C) 22415/2021** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:** **MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN MASTER, ASKHATHEYAMPARAMBIL, MUNDANATTUKARA DESOM, KOTHAKURUSSI AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUKK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 522.** **BY ADV P.GOPAL** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 6 TO 11:** - **1 A.P.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT AAKKATHEYAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDANATTUKARA DESOM, KOTHAKURISSI AMSOM, PAVUKONAM P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 522.** - **2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **3 THE DIRECTOR, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.** - **4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, MENATHU PARAMBU, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 001.** W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 2 :- - **5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 101.** - **6 INDIRA, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O.LATE DR.C.M.SREEDHARAN, INDUSHREE GOKULAM COMPOUND, PALATTU ROAD, OTTAPALAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679101.** - **7 URMILA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.SREEDHARAN, SREESAILAM, KADALUNDI, CHALIYAM P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 301.** - ***8 MADHUSOODHANAN, (EXPIRED.LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED) AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN MASTER, AAKKATHEYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDANATTUKARA DESOM, KOTHAKURISSI AMSOM, PAVUKONAM P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 522.** - **9 SHYLAJA, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.DR.SOMANATHAN, SREESAILAM, KADALUNDI, CHALIYAM P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 301.** - **10 BRIJESH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, SREESAILAM, KADALUNDI, CHALIYAM P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 301.** - **11 NISHA,** **AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.RAVEENDRAN, SREESAILAM, KADALUNDI, CHALIYAM P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 301.** - ***12 ANITHA MADHUSOODHANAN W/O.MADHUSOODHANAN, AAKKATHEYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDANATTUKARA DESOM, KOTHAKURISSI AMSOM, PAVUKONAM P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** - ***13 ANOOJA MADHUSOODHANAN D/O.MADHUSOODHANAN, AAKKATHEYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDANATTUKARA DESOM, KOTHAKURISSI AMSOM, PAVUKONAM P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-** W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 3 :- ***14 AKSHAYA MADHUSOODHANAN, D/O.MADHUSOODHANAN, AAKKATHEYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDANATTUKARA DESOM, KOTHAKURISSI AMSOM, PAVUKONAM P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT** ***(LEGAL HEIRS OF EXPIRED R8 IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 12 TO 14 AS PER ORDER DATED 12.12.2022 IN IA.NO.2/22 IN WA NO.1276/22) ADV P.GOPAL** **ADV.A.J.VARGHESE SR.GP ADV.T.MADHU** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1307/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 4 :- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **MONDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA,** ## **1944** **WA NO. 1307 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2022 IN WP(C) 22415/2021** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 10 & 11:** - **1 BRIJESH,** **AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, SREESAILAM, KADALUNDI, CHALLYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 301.** **2 NISHA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. RAVEENDRAN, SREESAILAM, KADALUNDI, CHALLYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 301.** **BY ADV GEORGE ABRAHAM** ## **- RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 9:** - **1 A.P.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT AAKKATHEYAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDANATTUKARA DESOM, KOTHAKURISSI AMSOM, PAVUKONAM P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 522.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 5 :- - **3 THE DIRECTOR, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.** - **4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, MENATHU PARAMBU, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101.** - **5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101.** - **6 MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAN MASTER, AAKHATHEYAMPARAMBIL, MUNDANATTUKARA DESOM, KOTHAKURISSI AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 522.** - **7 INDIRA, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. LATE DR. C.M. SREEDHARAN, INDUSREE GOKULAM COMPOUND, PALATTU ROAD, OTTAPALAMP.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679 101** **8 URMILA, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O. SREEDHARAN, SREESAILAM, KADALUNDI, CHALIYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 301.** - **9 MADHUSOODHANAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN MASTER, AAKHATHEYAMPARAMBIL, MUNDANATTUKARA DESOM, KOTHAKURISSI AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 522.** - **10 SHYLAJA,** **AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. DR. SOMANATHAN, SREESAILAM, KADALUNDI, CHALIYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 301.** **ADV P.GOPAL** **ADV.A.J.VARGHESE SR.GP** **ADV.T.MADHU** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1276/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 6 :- ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** **----------------------------------------------Writ Appeal Nos.1276 and 1307 of 2022 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of December, 2022.** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.** These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 25.02.2022 in W.P.(C) No.22415 of 2021. Among the appeals, W.A.No.1276 of 2022 is preferred by the fifth respondent in the writ petition and W.A.No.1307 of 2022 is preferred by respondents 10 and 11 in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in the writ petition. 2. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to the management of an aided school viz, A.L.P. School, Mundanattukara (the School). The School is one founded by one A.P.Ramakrishnan and he was the Manager of the School till his death. A.P.Ramakrishnan died on 07.06.1983. On his death, the W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 7 :- Educational Officer approved the appointment of the petitioner, who is one among the children of the founder, as the Manager of the School with effect from 08.06.1983. Ext.P1 is the order issued by the Educational Officer in this regard. As a matter of fact, the Educational Officer had earlier approved the managership of the petitioner with effect from a later date and it is based on the direction issued by the then Director of Public Instruction that his managership was approved with effect from 08.06.1983. 3. A.P.Ramakrishnan had seven children including the petitioner. One among them is no more. Respondents 5 to 9 in the writ petition are the surviving children of A.P.Ramakrishnan and respondents 10 and 11 are the legal representatives of the deceased daughter of A.P.Ramakrishnan. On the death of A.P.Ramakrishnan, disputes arose among his children in respect of the properties of A.P.Ramakrishnan. The fifth respondent, in the circumstances, instituted a suit for partition of the properties including the School as O.S.No.268 of 2014 before the Munsiff's Court, Ottappalam and obtained a W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 8 :- preliminary decree on 07.09.2020 for partition of his 1/8[th] share in the properties. The fifth respondent is yet to initiate any proceedings for passing of the final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree obtained by him. It is seen that even before the institution of the suit, the petitioner purchased the undivided rights of respondents 6, 7, 8, 9 and the deceased wife of A.P.Ramakrishnan in the properties and he now holds 6/8 share in the School properties. Out of the remaining 2/8 share, 1/8 share is held by the fifth respondent and 1/8 share is held by respondents 10 and 11 together. 4. It is seen that while the suit, O.S.No.268 of 2014 was pending, the fifth respondent filed an interlocutory application in the suit, seeking orders appointing a receiver for the management of the School. The said application was dismissed by the court taking the view that for such reliefs, the party has to approach the educational authorities. The fifth respondent, thereupon, lodged a complaint before the Director of General Education, mainly pointing out that on the death of A.P.Ramakrishnan, the educational agency became a corporate W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 9 :- one and the School has, therefore, to be managed in accordance with the rules to be approved by the Director of General Education as provided for in Rule 2 of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules (the KER), framed under the Kerala Education Act (the Act), and that the petitioner is managing the School as if it belongs to him exclusively, without giving the fifth respondent and others an opportunity to participate in the management of the School. On the said complaint, the Director of General Education took the view that insofar as there exists a dispute between the successors of the founder as to the management of the School, it is only appropriate that the School be managed by the Educational Officer until the dispute is resolved by the competent civil court and consequently, disposed of the complaint, appointing the concerned Educational Officer as the Manager of the School. Ext.P4 is the order issued by the Director of General Education in this regard. Although the petitioner challenged Ext.P4 order in revision before the Government, in terms of Ext.P7 order, the Government affirmed Ext.P4 order. The writ petition was one W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 10 :- instituted challenging Exts.P4 and P7 orders. 5. It appears that the learned Single Judge took the view that it is invoking the power of the Government under Section 14 of the Act that Ext.P4 order was passed by the Director of General Education and consequently, held that Ext.P4 order is bad, and disposed of the writ petition directing the Educational Officer to appoint the petitioner again as the Manager of the School. Respondents 5, 10 and 11 are aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge and hence, these appeals. 6. Heard the learned counsel for respondents 5, 10 and 11, the appellants in the appeals, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition as also the learned Government Pleader. 7. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent pointed out, at the outset, that the impugned judgment is rendered on the wrong premise that Ext.P4 order has been issued by the Director invoking Section 14 of the Act. It was submitted that the impugned judgment is not at all one ## W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 11 :- rendered invoking Section 14 of the Act, as apparently, Section 14 could be invoked only by the Government. It was argued by the learned counsel that the fifth respondent being a co-owner of the School and its properties, he is entitled to participate in the management of the School. According to him, Rule 2 of Chapter III of the KER provides a mechanism for the management of schools in such situations and it is since the parties could not agree to frame rules for the management of the School as provided for in the said statutory provision, the Director of General Education took the view that the School can be directed to be managed by the Educational Officer until the dispute between the parties is resolved through the process of the competent civil court. According to the learned counsel, the said decision of the Director of General Education cannot be said to be bad on any ground whatsoever as it is one issued on the premise that when a school belongs to a corporate educational agency, the same cannot be managed by the individual who has only a fractional right in the school and its properties. The learned counsel for respondents 10 and 11 W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 12 :- supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Educational Officer can be appointed as the Manager of the School only if the circumstances mentioned in Section 14 of the Act exist, and in the absence of any finding to that effect in Ext.P4 order, the same is bad. According to the learned counsel, there is no illegality, therefore, in the judgment impugned in the appeals. 9. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. As noted, the School is one founded and managed by A.P.Ramakrishnan. On his death, since the School devolved on more than one person, the educational agency concerned can be regarded only as a corporate educational agency [See **Somanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala,** 2007 (1) KLT 127]. Rule 2 of Chapter III of the KER reads thus: “ **2. 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 W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 ## -: 13 :- subject to rules approved by the 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 Director before becoming operative.” In the light of the said provision, there cannot be any doubt that the School being one held by a corporate educational agency after the death of its founder, the same can be managed only in accordance with the rules approved by the Director of General Education. In the instant case, there is no dispute to the fact that on the death of A.P.Ramakrishan, rules have neither been framed nor approved by the Director of General Education for the management of the School. On the other hand, the School is being managed by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 order. The management of the School since 08.06.1983 W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 14 :- cannot, therefore, be said to be in accordance with the Act and the KER. Rules for management of a school owned by a corporate educational agency can be framed only with the consent of all the parties constituting the corporate educational agency and in the event they are unable to agree on a set of rules, the rules can be framed only by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The Director of General Education, in the circumstances, cannot be blamed for having issued Ext.P4 order. It is all the more so since respondents 5, 10 and 11 have equal rights, along with the petitioner, to participate in the management of the School as co-owners of the property. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 5, 10 and 11, Ext.P4 order cannot be said to be one issued invoking Section 14 of the Act, especially when the said power is one conferred under the statute on the State Government. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appointment of the petitioner again as the Manager of the School. 11. Be that as it may, Ext.P2 judgment in ## W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 15 :- O.S.No.268 of 2014 indicates that it was a simple suit for partition and no relief was granted in the said suit in relation to the management of the School. In other words, if Ext.P4 order is upheld, the Educational Officer will have to function as the Manager of the School until the dispute relating to the management of the School is resolved by the parties. The educational officers are not meant in terms of the provisions of the Act and the KER for the management of aided schools. Their role is only to ensure that the schools are managed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the KER. In other words, the schools are to be managed by the educational agency themselves. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to modify Ext.P4 order so as to enable the parties themselves to manage the School. Since the petitioner holds 6/8 share and the fifth respondent and respondents 10 and 11 together hold 1/8 share each, we are of the view that the parties can be permitted to manage the School on rotation basis, having regard to the quantum of shares held by them. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed in part W.A. Nos.1276 & 1307 of 2022 -: 16 :- modifying Ext.P4 order and permitting the petitioner to manage the School for a period of six years and permitting the fifth respondent and respondents 10 and 11 together to manage the School for one year each. It is also directed that in that process, the first turn shall go to the fifth respondent and the second turn shall go to respondents 10 and 11 together, as the petitioner was managing the school for more than thirty years at a stretch. It is made clear that this judgment will not preclude the parties from instituting appropriate proceedings for framing of rules for the management of the School, or from framing rules themselves with the concurrence of all who have interests in the school, for the administration of the school, and submitting the same for approval to the Director of General Education, so as to replace the arrangement made in terms of this judgment for the management of the school. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** Sd/- **C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.** YKB