P.Geetha (W/o V.C. Jayathilakan) v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/12TH AGRAHAYANA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 32330 of 2003 (W) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **------------P.GEETHA, W/O.V.C.JAYATHILAKAN(LATE) AGED 44 YEARS, ASWATHI, GA & SC P.O. MEENCHANDA, KOZHIKODE-18** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.** **2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION JHAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14** **3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER TELLICHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT** **4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CHOKLI, KANNUR5 DISTRICT** **5. THE HEADMASTER V.P.L.P SCHOOL, CHOKLI, KANNUR DISTRICT** **6. SRI.V.C JAYAPRAKASAN JAYNTHI CHOKLI-670672 KANNUR DISTRICT** **7. SRI.K.P.FAISAL** - **FULL TIME ARABIC TEACHER (NOT APPROVED) V.P.L.P SCHOOL, CHOKLI, KANNUR DISTRICT** **R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN R7 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.RETNAKARAN R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-10-2012 ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.23324/2004 AND W.P.(C).NO. 29979/2006,THE COURT ON 3-12-2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **MNS** 2 **WP(C).No. 32330 of 2003 (W)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.105/2000 OF THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY DATED 26.O7.2002** **EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY DECREE OF -DO-DATED 26.O7.2002 DATED 24.O9.1999** **EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.O9.1999.** **EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3.11786/2000 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2000** **EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B3.11786/2000 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.03.2001** **EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3.5794/2001 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05.11.2001** **EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.EM3/75756/99 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.08.2003** **EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL** **EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt.)No.3374/03/G.EDN.OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 23.08.2003** **EXHIBIT P11- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt.)No.3O80/2004/G.EDN.OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 21.07.2004** **EXHIBIT P12- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt.)No.4186/05/G.EDN.OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 24.08.2005** **EXHIBIT P13- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.75756/99/EM3/DPI OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DATED 19.11.2003** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R7(a):COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 6.6.2001 OF SMT.BEENA.V.C** **EXHIBIT R7(b):COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DDIS 75756/99 EM3/DPI DATED 19.11.2003** 3 **WP(C).No. 32330 of 2003 (W)** **EXHIBIT R7(c):COPY OF THE G.O(Rt) NO. 956/06/G.EDn. DATED 2.3.2006 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT R6(a):COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT OF SMT.BEENA V.C MADE BY THIS RESPONDENT AS U.P.S.A DATED 6.6.2001** **EXHIBIT R6(b):COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DDIS 75756/99 EM3/DPI DATED 19.11.2003** **EXHIBIT R6(c):COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 8.12.2003 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R6(d):COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(Rt) NO. 956/06/G.EDn. DATED 2.3.2006 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.Nos.32330 of 2003, 23324 of 2004 and 29979 of 2006 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of December 2012 ## **J U D G M E N T** These writ petitions arises out of a claim made by the petitioner in W.P.C.No.23324/04 in connection with management of V.P. Oriental High School and V.P LP School, Chokli. 2. Respondents have filed separate counter affidavits in respect of their contentions. I am not referring in detail to the contentions raised in the writ petition on account of the subsequent development since a final decree had been passed in a suit for partition filed between the private parties involved in the case. 2. One Sri.V.C.Jayathilakan, was the manager of the said school who died on 10/08/1999. The claim of the petitioner was that she, being the wife of the deceased manager, was entitled to be the manager of the school. She submitted Ext.P1 application. But by Ext.P2 the brother of Jayathilakan, R3 herein was made the manager of the school. Ext.P2 is the said order. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the Government and W.P.C.No.32330/03 & conn.cases 2 Ext.P4 is the order passed denying the same to the petitioner. Hence challenging Exts.P2 and P4 the writ petition is filed. 4. WPC.No.32330/03 is filed by P.Geetha, inter alia contending that the property in which the schools are situated belongs to the family in which petitioner and her son are entitled to a share. A suit is filed claiming partition of the properties. She submitted Ext.P3 representation to the 3[rd] respondent not to transfer the management of the school without her consent which was declined by education authorities. In the meantime, the 6[th] respondent V.C.Jayaprakasan, brother of her husband, requested for transferring the school management in his name. Though the same was declined, he approached the 2[nd] respondnet by filing an appeal. It is contended that while the matter was pending consideration, the 7[th] respondent was appointed in the school by the 6[th] respondent in collusion with the Government. Ext.P10 is the order. Petitioner challenges Ext.P10 relating to the appointing of the 7[th] respondent. 5. WPC No.29979 of 2006 is again filed by P.Geetha inter alia contending that when the 6[th] respondent Jayaprakasan appointed by the 7[th] respondent in terms of Ext.P10 order of the W.P.C.No.32330/03 & conn.cases 3 Government, she challenged the matter by filing WPC No.32033 of 2003 and there was an interim stay granted by the Court as Ext.P11. Thereafter the petitioner moved the Government seeking certain directions. It is stated that Ext.P13 is an order passed by the Government by Ext.P15 order. In Ext.P13 the Government had directed that the 6[th] respondent is prevented from making any appointments and educational officers are directed not to entertain such appointments in view of the pendency of the suit in connection with the partition of the property and there is no scope for approval of V.C.Jayaprakasan as a full fledged manager with powers to make appointments. By P15, the Government had indicated that in regard to the appointments made by V.C.Jayaprakasan, he had submitted a declaration that the salary paid to them be refunded if their appointments were cancelled in future based on the direction from the court or from any appropriate authority, the Government modified the order indicating that the appointments made by the manager can be approved as to avoid harm to the appointees. 4 W.P.C.No.32330/03 & conn.cases 6. The only issue relating to the above case being in connection with the right to manage schools which was managed by the husband of the petitioner until his death, the writ petitions are disposed of in a common judgment. 7. Learned counsel for Sri.V.C.Jayaprakasan, the present manager who is provisionally approved by the Government, has now produced a judgment of the Civil court in O.S.No.105/2000 of Sub Court Thalassery as ext.R6(e). In the final decree passed in the said suit, the property in which the school is situated is allotted to the share of V.C.Jayachandran, Jayanthi, Jayaratnam and V.C.Prakash. The petitioner and her son are only allotted certain items in Item No.3 and share No.1 in Ext.C1(b) share list. Therefore, as matters stand now, petitioner cannot claim right of management in the school. 8. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the judgment in **Somanathapillai v. State of Kerala** [2007(1) KLT 127] wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that when the management of the school is vested with the approved manager as per rules and after the death of such an individual who had the right to conduct the W.P.C.No.32330/03 & conn.cases 5 school in his own capacity, the right are inherited by one or more of the legal representatives. If it is not devolve on a particular individual by way of testament deposition or by way of personal law and is devolved on more than one person, it will become a corporate educational agency. It is therefore the contention of the learned counsel that the management of the school has to be in the form of a corporate educational agency. I do not think that as matters stand now such a presumption is possible. The manager of the school is a representative of the owners of the property in which the school is situated. In the present case the property has been partitioned among the sharers and once the property in which the schools are situated is alloted to the share of one person or a group of persons, they alone will have the right to manage the school. In the present case, the right in the property and consequently in the school is admittedly now with certain others and the petitioner does not have any proprietary right. 9. In that view of the matter, she cannot claim to have any right of the management in respect of the schools. Since the final decree has been passed during the pendency of the writ W.P.C.No.32330/03 & conn.cases 6 petition, it relates back to the date of filing the suit, much prior to the date on which the present cases have been filed. Once the shares have been allotted effective from the date of filing the suit, which was in the year 2000, petitioner does not have any vested right to claim the right of management in respect of the schools. That being the situation, these writ petitions are only to be dismissed. (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr //True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.32330/03 & conn.cases 7 W.P.C.No.32330/03 & conn.cases 8