Disposed

Sreekumar v. District Educational Officer

Kerala HC28 Nov 2012WP(C)/9439/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Director of Public Instructions to consider the petitioner's representation regarding school management transfer, noting pending departmental sanction, and disposed of both related writ petitions with a mandate to finalize proceedings within two months.

What did the court decide?

The Director of Public Instructions is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders giving an opportunity of hearing, finalizing proceedings within two months.

Sreekumar Vs District Educational Officer — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/7TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 9439 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SREEKUMAR,, AGED 46 YEARS S/O SREEDDHARAN SNDP YOGAM SECRETARY CHIRAYINKEEZHU THALUK 695304 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, DEO'S OFFICE, ATTINGAL P.O, PIN 695101

¶11

2. ASSIST, EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, AEO,S OFFICE VARKALA 695141

¶12

3. BEENA RAJEEV,

¶13

SHYAM NIVAS, THEKKUMBHAGAM KADAKKAVOOR, PIN 695306

¶14

4. HEADNSTRESS,

¶15

SRVLP SCHOOL KADAKKAVOOR PO PIN 695306

¶16

5. SASIDHARAN NAIR,

¶17

MANAGER SSPBH SCHOOL KADAKKAVOOR PIN 695 306

¶18

6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶19

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.T. SHEEBA R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-11-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 11903/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

DCS

¶22

WP(C).No. 9439 of 2012 (D)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-

¶25

EXT. P1	THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RULES OF THE
	SNDP YOGAM APPROVED IN THE SPECIAL GENERAL BODY
	MEETING ON 11-04-1999

¶26

EXT. P2	THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL OF MANAGER OF
	THE SRVLP SCHOOL KADAKKAVUR BY THE ASSISTANT
	EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VARKALA AS PER ORDER NO D/773/09
	DATED 10-08-2009

¶27

EXT. P3	THE COPY PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO NS (3) 66515/2011 DATED 24-11-2011 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VARKALA
EXT. P4	THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03-04-2012
EXT. P5	THE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE DUMPING OF SAND AND CONSTRUCTION IN THE SCHOOL
EXT. P6	THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.02.2011 FORWARDED TO THE KADAKKAVUR SAKHA SECRETARY
EXT. P7	THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE SNDP YOGAM COUNCIL DATED 25.05.2012
EXT. P8	THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. C/890/AEO/2012 DATED 19.05.2012

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :-

¶29

EXT. R5(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 817/2007
EXT. P5(b) & (c)	A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID BY SMT. VALSALA, SURYA AND RESMI ON 12.5.2009 ALONG WITH POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.02.2011 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF SMT. VALSALA, SURYA AND RESMI
EXT. R5(d)	A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED HAVING NO. 341/2011
EXT. R5(e)	A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 2.6.2011
EXT. R5(f)	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 28.03.2012
EXT. R5(g)	A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 26.07.2010 OF THE SAGHA YOGAM
EXT. R5(h)	A TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING DATED 04.07.2010
DCS

¶30

WP(C).No. 9439 of 2012 (D)

¶31

EXT. R5(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.08.2010 EXT. R5(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 28.01.2011 EXT. R5(k) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2011 EXT. R5(l) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.03.2012 EXT. R5(m) A TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT APPLICATION DATED 1.2.2012

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) Nos. 9439 and 11903 of 2012 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 28^th day of November, 2012

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Transfer of management of the school is the subject matter involved in these writ petitions.

¶40

W.P(C) No. 9439 of 2012 has been filed by a person by name Sreekumar, who has described himself as the Secretary of SNDP Union, seeking for a direction to be given to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents not to give approval to the transfer of Management of the School, to the 5^th respondent therein, stating that there is no sanction of SNDP Yogam, who is stated as the educational agency.

¶41

The case of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11903 of 2012 is that the school in fact was set up and was being run by Smt. Valsala, Smt. Surya and Smt. Resmi. In the meanwhile, the person by name Smt. Valsala, who was functioning as the educational agency, found it difficult to manage the school and hence the management was entrusted

¶42

W.P.(C) Nos. 9439 and 11903 of 2012

¶43

: 2 :

¶44

with the local SNDP Sakha. Later, the petitioner moved the Sakha, expressing willingness to take over the school, subject to payment of a lump sum compensation, also with intent to purchase the property. The matter was considered by the Managing Committee of the SNDP Yogam in their meeting held on 27.06.2010, whereupon it has been clearly observed, as borne by Ext. P4, that the management of the school had really become difficult for various reasons and it was found quiet uneconomic as well, as declared by the Government in this regard. It was accordingly, that the Committee took a decision to entrust the management to somebody else for the agreed consideration, more so, when the property did not belong to the SNDP Sakha. Pursuant to the said decision, the matter was put up before the General Body of the Sakha, who considered the same in the meeting held on 04.07.2010, leading to Ext. P5, whereby the transfer of management was upheld. There was yet another General Body on 28.10.2011 in the presence of Union Council, as reflected from Ext. P6, whereby the earlier proceedings were confirmed and ratified.

¶45

W.P.(C) Nos. 9439 and 11903 of 2012

¶46

: 3 :

¶47

Though the petitioner has preferred Ext. P7 representation

¶48

before the first respondent/AEO, nothing has transpired in the positive, hence before this Court for appropriate relief.

¶49

The departmental authority has filed a counter affidavit, referring to the actual facts and circumstances. It is also stated that the AEO has already forwarded the matter for consent and approval of the DPI, as per Ext. R1(a) and that necessary orders are awaited.

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11903 of 2012 submits that there is absolutely no locus standi for the petitioner in the other case, who happened to be second respondent in W.P(C) No. 11903 of 2012, to resist the transfer, also for the reason that he himself had written Ext. P8 letter to the SNDP Yogam in his official capacity, referring to the course and events and feasibility and the necessity to effect transfer of management. It is thereafter that he has taken a 'U turn' filing W.P.(C) No. 9439 of 2012, which is not liable to be entertained.

¶51

W.P.(C) Nos. 9439 and 11903 of 2012

¶52

: 4 :

¶53

The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)

¶54

9439 of 2012 submits that, when the proceedings were brought to the notice of the concerned authority of the Yogam, it was informed that the management could not be transferred

¶55

without the consent of the Yogam, more so since the Educational Agency was the 'Yogam' and not the 'Sakha'. It is however sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Section 2 (2) of the Kerala Education Act defining the term “Educational Agency” in the following terms :

¶56

“ (2) “educational agency” means any person or body of persons permitted to establish and maintain any private school under this Act.”

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this property has been purchased from Smt.Valsala, who was the educational agency. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Ext. P9, whereby the vendor of the property to Ext. P1 sale deed became the owner of the property. Further reference is made to the prior document/sale deed dated 23.01.1967,

¶58

W.P.(C) Nos. 9439 and 11903 of 2012

¶59

: 5 :

¶60

whereby the vendor of Ext. P9 obtained the title. With reference to the flow of title, as seen from Ext. P9 leading to Ext. P1, the learned counsel submits that the rights and interests of the petitioner can never be disputed.

¶61

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11903 of 2012 submits that no concurrence of the departmental authority is necessary for transfer of a running school, as statutory prescription under Section 6 of the Act contemplates a situation under some other circumstances. Reference is made to the decisions reported in 1975 KLT S.N. 50 (Case No. 128) [P.V. John Vs. Director of Public Instructions], 1992 (1) KLT S.N. 14 (Case No. 18) [Kunjulekshmi Vs. Krishnan Unnithan] and 1992 (1) KLT S.N. 25 (Case No. 28) [Vijayakumari Pillai Vs. State of Kerala] in support of the contention.

¶62

After hearing both the sides and also the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that the matter is pending consideration before the second respondent in W.P. (C) 11903 of 2012, pursuant to the sanction sought for by the

¶63

W.P.(C) Nos. 9439 and 11903 of 2012

¶64

: 6 :

¶65

AEO vide Ext. R1(a). In the said circumstances, the Director of Public Instructions is directed to consider Ext. P7 preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11903 of 2012 for transfer of management [forwarded by the first respondent/AEO vide Ext. R1(a)] and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in both the cases. The proceedings as above shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶66

In view of the directions as above, the Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram is impleaded as the additional respondent in W.P.(C) No. 11903/2012 and the learned Government Pleader has taken notice on behalf of the said respondent as well.

¶67

Both the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶68

sd/-

¶69

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶70

kmd

Sreekumar v. District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekumar v. District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India Vs M/S.Veneers & Laminations(India) Ltd.

B.Gopal Vs the Director General Cisf Head Quarters

The Parents Teachers Association Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Sivan Vs Director,Urban Affairs

Dr.Balachandran Keezhoth Vs Kannur University & Others

Sanoj Y. Vs State of Kerala