State of Kerala & Ors. v. Dr. Zakhir Hussain Memorial Pvt. Industrial Training Institute & Ors. (WA No. 1393 of 2014 in WP(C) 13757/2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/28TH ASWINA, 1936 WA.No. 1393 of 2014 IN WP(C).13757/2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13757/2014 DATED 16-06-2014 ## APPELLANT: 1.STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR & REHABILITATION(C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING,INDUSTRIAL TRAINING DEPARTMENT (KERALA STATE) THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY STATE APPRENTICESHIP ADVISOR, DIRECTORATE OF TRAINING, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ROY THOMAS ## RESPONDENTS: DR. ZAKHIR HUSSAIN MEMORIAL PVT. INDUSTRIAL TRANINING INSTITUTE, PERUNNAI, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM 686 102 REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL, K.A. LATHEEF. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING , DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3. NADEER M.A. S/O. M.H. ABDUL RAHIM, MOOPARU VEEDU CHANGANACHERRYY, KOTTAYAM DIST. 686 102. R BY SRI.JOHN VARGHESE R BY SRI.K.SHAJ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.R.** # **THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ. =========================== W.A.No. 1393 of 2014** **=========================== Dated this the 20[th] day of October, 2014** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.** The State Government and two of its officers in their official capacity, are the appellants. The issue in hand is in relation to the action taken by the Head of an Industrial Training Institute. 2. Writ petitioner, a student of the Institute was removed from the rolls on account of certain wrongful acts attributed to him. Police had also registered a case relating to that incident. The Director of Training in the Industrial Training Department in the Government of Kerala wanted the Principal of the Industrial Training WA 1393/2014 2 Institute to re-admit that student. The Institute did not budge. That led to the writ petition. That ended with a direction to issue a transfer certificate (TC) to the student. He is not aggrieved. But the State Government establishment has filed this writ appeal, essentially, asserting the administrative supremacy of the Director of Training in the Industrial Training Department of the Government over the Institute, and, to settle the controlling power to issue directions to Institute. 3. At the outset, we record that to our query in that regard, the learned counsel for the student submitted that his client does not challenge the impugned judgment. 4. We have heard the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for management of the Institute, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Director General of Employment and Training in the Government of India, WA 1393/2014 3 the second respondent, and the learned counsel Sri. John Varghese appearing on behalf of the student who filed the writ petition. 5. Whatever be the quality of the allegation and the nature of the police charge, it is inappropriate for the controlling department to interfere with the predominant authority of the head of an educational institution in a matter relating to discipline of students of that institution. Without elaborating further, we notice the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in **Aldo Karia Patroni v. E.C. Kesavan (1964 KLT 791)** in which the Hon'ble the Chief Justice M.S.Menon said that “the post of Headmaster is of pivotal importance in the file of a school. Around him wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching.” Profitable reference has also to be made to **N.Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High** WA 1393/2014 4 ## **School & Others [AIR 1999 SC 50]** in which the Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.T.Thomas speaking on behalf of the Bench of the Apex Court laid down that “the Headmaster is the key post in the running of the school. He is the hub on which all the spokes of the school are set around whom they rotate to generate result. A school is personified through its Headmaster and he is the focal point on which outsiders look at the school. The functional efficacy of a school very much depends upon the efficiency and dedication of its Headmaster. This prestine precept remains unchanged despite many changes taking place in the structural patterns of education over the years”. Similar is the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ahmedabad St.Xaviers College Society & another v. State of Gujarat & another [1975(1)SCR 173]** . Those decisions have been referred to in **Jolrin Jose. K. v. District Eduational Officer and another [2005(1) KLJ 891]** WA 1393/2014 5 in which it is noted by this Court that the role of the Headmaster and the action taken by the Headmaster cannot be lightly considered or interfered with, except in exceptional circumstances on grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness or perversity. In that case, the parent of the student had contended that the intention of a disciplinary action against the student should be to correct the erring student and not to punish him and that it shall not result in making a student a culprit in the society. It was noted that the parenting ought to be proper, and that reformation would become necessary in the absence of proper upbringing. The lap of the mother is the first school, the father controls the child and the teacher leads him, as noted in **Jolrin Jose. K.** ( _supra_ ). Following the aforesaid judgments, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment in that regard. 6. The trump card of the appellants is the contents of a Training Manual. As rightly noted in the impugned WA 1393/2014 6 judgment, the clause relied on by the appellants did not survive the particular year noted by the learned single Judge. That notwithstanding, in view of the unsurmountable proposition noted above as regards the power and duties of the Principal, any clause in such a Manual has no superimposing value or force to diffuse the authority of the Head of a teaching institution. In the result, this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to enjoy the benefit of the judgment to the extent granted thereby. Sd/- **THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE** Sd/- **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE** ks. True copy P.S. TO JUDGE WA 1393/2014 7