Dismissed

P.Nisam v. the D.E.O. and Others

Kerala HC15 May 2009WP(C)/12777/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order approving a change in school managership. The court held that the order was passable under Chapter III Rule 4 of the Kerala Education Rules. Finding an efficacious alternative remedy, the court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to file an appeal. It prescribed timelines for disposal of the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed directing the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks, with the appellate authority to dispose of the same within one month.

P.Nisam Vs the D.E.O. and Others — Kerala HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH MAY 2009 / 25TH VAISAKHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 12777 of 2009(N)

¶6

--------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

----------------------

¶9

P. NISAM, S/O.POOKUNJU, AGED 45 YEARS, NISAM MANZIL, KANIYAPURAM, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.SHINU J.PILLAI SMT.S.SUJA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF D.E.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. RAMLA BEEGAM, W/O.LATE IBRAHIMKUNJU, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT THANOOJA MANZIL, PUTHEN KADAVU, KANIYAPURAM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.REMANI R3 BY MR.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.T.C.SURESH MENON MR.JIBU P THOMAS MR.P.S.APPU MR.A.R.NIMOD MR.C.A.ANOOP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C). NO. 12777/2009-N

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/03/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN R.F.A NO.327/2008 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.27/2008 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 18/06/2008.

¶24

EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.886/2008 IN O.S. NO.90/06 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF ATTINGAL.

¶25

EXT.R3(c): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 23/01/2009.

¶26

EXT.R3(d): COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 23/01/2009.

¶27

EXT.R3(e): COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 23/01/2009.

¶28

EXT.R3(f): COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 23/01/2009.

¶29

EXT.R3(g): COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN THE REQUISITE PROFORMA ADDRESSED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE SUPPORTING TESTIMONIALS DATED 23/01/2009.

¶30

EXT.R3(h): COPY OF THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 23/01/2009.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

Rs/

V.GIRI, J.

W.P.(C).NO.12777 of 2009

¶36

Dated this the 15^th day of May, 2009.

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner, who is a member of the Corporate Educational Agency, challenges Ext.P1 order of the District Educational Officer, approving the change of managership in favour of the 3^rd respondent.

¶39

Going by Ext.R3(b) judgment of the civil court,

¶40

which directed framing of a scheme for managership of the school, the managership should rotate amongst the 4 branches which constitutes the family. The writ petitioner belongs to Branch I and the contesting respondent Branch II. Comprehensive directions have been issued by the civil court as to the manner in which the managership has to be rotated. The tenure of managership is two years. It seems that Ext.R3(b) is taken up in appeal before this court. But, as on date, the judgment and decree remains operative.

¶41

Taking note of the directions contained in Ext.R3(b) judgment, which contemplated rotation of managership amongst the four branches, the contesting respondent moved an

¶42

W.P.(C).NO.12777 of 2009

¶43

:: 2 ::

¶44

application before the District Educational Officer for change of approval of managership from the petitioner to that of the contesting respondent. The District Educational Officer issued notice to the representatives of the four branches. But, nobody turned up on behalf of Branch IV. The representative of Branch III supported the change of managership. Taking note of the broad directions issued by the civil court, the District Educational Officer approved the change of managership as sought for in the application filed by the 3^rd respondent vide Ext.P1 order and the same has been challenged in this writ petition.

¶45

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent. It is inter alia contended that the order Ext.P1, which has been challenged in this writ petition is one passed by the District Educational Officer in terms of Chapter III Rule 4(1) of the Kerala Education Rules and the same is, therefore, appealable before the Director of Public Instructions, in terms of Chapter III Rule 4(3) of the Rules. A further revision in terms of Chapter III Rule 4(4) is also provided. In the circumstances, it is

¶46

W.P.(C).NO.12777 of 2009

¶47

:: 3 ::

¶48

contended that this court need not consider the correctness of the order passed by the District Educational Officer at this stage.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶50

Ext.P1 order cannot be considered as one passed in consonance with the judgment of the civil court or in consonance with the provisions of the statute. I am of the view that an order approving the change of managership in an educational agency will have to be sourced to Rule 4 of Chapter III of the KER. Therefore, the correctness of the order can be questioned before the appellate authority in terms of the Rules. In these circumstances, I am of the view that this court need not consider the correctness of Ext.P1 order at this stage, since the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy.

¶51

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appeal against Ext.P1 challenging the correctness of the directions issued by the District Educational Officer, both on the ground that it is not in consonance with the decree that has been passed by the civil court and on any other ground that may be available. Since the contesting respondent

¶52

W.P.(C).NO.12777 of 2009

¶53

:: 4 ::

¶54

has already entered appearance, it is made clear that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from today, the appellate authority shall proceed to dispose of the same within one month thereafter, after hearing all parties concerned. It is open to the petitioner to move the appellate authority for appropriate interim orders as well. It is needless to mention that nothing stated herein shall prejudice the petitioner in challenging the judgment and decree in Ext.R3(b).

¶55

Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE

¶56

sk/

¶57

//true copy//

P.Nisam v. the D.E.O. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Nisam v. the D.E.O. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chairman, S.M.D.Public School, Peroor, Vs State and Others

Sarathkumar K Vs Controller of Examinations

Naushad Vs the R.T.a,Kollam

T.K.Suresh Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, Darussalam L.P.School Vs the State of Kerala and Others

M.v.Joseph Vs Corporation of Cochin