W.P.(C) No. 29456 of 2006 (F) - C.A. Chacko v. State of Kerala & others - High Court of Kerala (2011)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Siri Jagan
Judgment Date: 2011-10-11
Court Decision / Holding: W.P. (C) No. 29456/06: The petition is dismissed, but without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to pursue appropriate remedies against Ext.P9 judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; without prejudice to remedy against Ext.P9 judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C.A. Chacko, S/O C.C.Abraham, Manager, Kadapra St. Thomas High School, Kadapra

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary, Department of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram
Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram
Sri K.K. Iype, S/o Kuriyan Kochu Kurian, Varambinakathu House, KizhaKumbhagom P.O., Nirnam West, Thiruvalla
Saramma, Varambinakathu House, Nirnam West, Thiruvalla

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. SMT. Deepa G. Pal

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Antony Mukkath
• Adv. S. Shanavas Khan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition arises from a protracted dispute over the management of an aided school. The petitioner, C.A. Chacko, is the manager under a 15‑member committee constituted by a deed in 1093 ME. The third respondent asserted proprietary rights and formed a committee with himself as manager; this led to a civil suit and a series of writ petitions. The Civil Court ultimately held that the committee including the petitioner was entitled to manage the school. Following this, the Government, by Ext.P7, directed that the eight‑member committee with the petitioner as manager was entitled to manage the school. Meanwhile, the third respondent, while acting as manager, appointed the fourth respondent as a Lower Division Clerk in the school. The petitioner challenged the validity of the fourth respondent’s appointment, arguing lack of jurisdiction and illegality. The matter moved through the Deputy Director of Public Instructions (DEO) and to the Director of Public Instructions (DPI) via revision petitions. In Ext.P9, a learned Single Judge upheld the claim of the fourth respondent and quashed the DEO’s order, while relying on the decision in Beji Abraham’s case (and its extension in Manager, St. Mary’s H.S. v. Beji Abraham) as authority. The court observed that Ext.P9 would stand and could not be interfered with merely because a revision was pending. The writ petition was dismissed, but without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to seek appropriate remedies against Ext.P9.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the appointment of the 4th respondent as LDC is void ab initio and that Ext.P7 order recognizing the petitioner’s eight‑member committee should be upheld; he seeks to quash Ext.P3 (appointment) and Ext.P11 (revision outcomes) and asserts that the 3rd respondent had no jurisdiction to appoint in the school; the matter has traversed through DEO and DPI, with the court previously directing consideration by the DPI as per the civil decree.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Ext.P9 judgment stands, upholding the 4th respondent’s appointment; the DPI cannot adjudicate a revision against an order already quashed by this Court; reliance is placed on Beji Abraham’s case as governing authority; the appointment should stand in light of the court’s earlier findings.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Manager, St. Mary's H.S. v. Beji Abraham	2002(1) KLT 406	Positive	Cited as authority in Ext.P9 to support the upholding of the 4th respondent’s appointment and the reliance on Beji Abraham’s rationale.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933** **WP(C).No. 29456 of 2006(F)** **--------------------------** **PETITIONER** - **------------------** **C.A. CHACKO, S/O. C.C.ABRAHAM, AGED 72 YEARS, CHATHENKERIL HOUSE, ROSE MOUNT, STADIUM ROAD, THIRUVALLA, MANAGER, KADAPRA ST. THOMAS HIGH SCHOOL, KADAPRA.** **BY ADV. SMT.DEEPA G. PAL** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-----------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. SRI.K.K.IYPE, S/O.KURIAN KOCHU KURIAN, VARAMBINAKATHU HOUSE, KIZHAKUMBHAGOM P.O., NIRANAM WEST, THIRUVALLA.** ## **4. SARAMMA, VARAMBINAKATHU HOUSE, NIRANAM WEST, THIRUVALLA.** **R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 29456 of 2006(F)** **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **----------------** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **-----------------------------------** **EXT.P1. COPY OF THE UDAMBADY NO.115 OF 1093 M.E.DATED 22.6.1993.** **EXT.P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2002 IN O.S. NO.161/1995 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA.** **EXT.P3. COPY OF THE APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.B1676/2003 DATED 7.10.2003 ISSUED BY THE D.E.O.** **EXT.P4. COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18.12.2003 IN WPC NO.40064/2003 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT** **EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3-165/04 KDIS DATED 12.04.04.** **EXT.P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16TH JUNE 2004 IN WPC NO.40064/2003.** **EXT.P7. GOVERNMENT BY ORDER NO.G.O. (RT) NO.5204/04 G. EDN. DATED 6.12.2004.** **EXT.P8. COPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.05** **EXT.P9. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19TH OCTOBER 2005 IN WPC NO.688/2005** **EXT.P10. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24TH OCTOBER 2005 IN WPC NO.6470/2005.** **EXT.P11. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET (3)/45487/05/DPI/D.DIS. DATED 25.1.2006.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **EXT.R4 (A). COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2005 IN WPC NO.688/05 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, J.** ------------------------------------------- ## W.P.(C) No.29456 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of October, 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the manager of an aided school. The school was formerly managed by a 15 member committee including the petitioner's father constituted by a deed in the year 1093 ME. The 3[rd] respondent claimed certain proprietary rights in respect of the management of the school. He constituted a managing committee by himself and got himself appointed as the manager. This resulted in a series of writ petitions and a civil suit. Ultimately, the Civil Court decided the issue in favour of the petitioner holding that the committee constituted with the petitioner as the manager is the committee entitled to manage the affairs of the school. The writ petitions were ultimately disposed of by this Court directing the Government to decide the issue in accordance with the decree of the Civil Court. The Government, by Ext.P7 order, found that the eight member committee constituted with the petitioner as the manager is the committee entitled to manage the affairs of the school. While the W.P.(C)No.29456/06 2 3[rd] respondent was managing the affairs of the school as manager, he appointed the 4[th] respondent as a Lower Division Clerk in the school. According to the petitioner, the 4[th] respondent is the daughter-in-law of the 3[rd] respondent. The petitioner contends that insofar as the 3[rd] respondent had no manner of right to appoint anybody in the school, the appointment of the 4[th] respondent is clearly without jurisdiction and could not have been approved. After Ext.P7 order of the Government, the DEO took up the question of validity of appointment of the 4[th] respondent and held that in view of the Government Order, the appointment is bad. The petitioner filed Ext.P8 revision before the 2[nd] respondent, Director of Public Instructions against Ext.P7. While that revision was pending the 4[th] respondent along with another teacher appointed by the 3[rd] respondent approached this Court, against the order o f the DEO cancelling their appointments. By Ext.P9 judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the claim of the 4[th] respondent and the other teacher in view of the decision of this Court in _**Manager, St. Mary's H.S.**_ v. _**Beji Abraham**_ [2002(1) KLT 406] and quashed the order of the DEO. But, in Ext.P9 judgment, it was held that the same W.P.(C)No.29456/06 3 would be subject to the result of the revision filed by the petitioner pending before the Director of Public Instructions. By Ext.P10 judgment in W.P.(C)No.6470/2005 filed by the petitioner, the learned Single Judge also directed the Director of Public Instructions to consider and pass orders on the revision petition. Pursuant thereto, by Ext.P11 order, the Director of Public Instructions dismissed the revision on the ground that since this Court has already quashed the order of the DEO cancelling the appointment of the 4[th] respondent, the revision filed against the order of the DEO will not stand. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Declare that the appointment of the 4[th] respondent as L.D.C. is void ab- initio. (ii) Call for the records leading to Exhibit-P3 and P11 may quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent and the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent. 3. I am of opinion that as long as Ext.P9 judgment stands, I cannot interfere with the appointment of the 4[th] respondent. It is true that in Ext.P9 judgment, while accepting the contention of the 4[th] respondent and quashing Ext.P7 W.P.(C)No.29456/06 4 order, this Court has stated that it would be subject to the result of the revision filed by the petitioner pending before the Director of Public Instructions. But, once this Court had quashed the order of the DEO against which only revision was filed by the petitioner it is of no consequence at all. The DPI cannot decide a revision petition against an order which had already been quashed by this Court on merits. Further, in Ext.P9 judgment the claim of the 4[th] respondent has been upheld in the light of the decision in _**Beji Abraham's**_ case (supra). As long as that stands, I do not think that I can give any relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed but, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out her remedies against Ext.P9 judgment appropriately. ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** acd W.P.(C)No.29456/06 5 W.P.(C)No.29456/06 6

W.P.(C) No. 29456 of 2006 (F) - C.A. Chacko v. State of Kerala & others