This Writ Appeal challenged the High Court Single Judge's order vacating a status-quo order supporting the appellant as Manager of a school. The Court held that the status-quo could not extend beyond the appellant's approved tenure which had expired, and thus dismissed the appeal.
Status quo order vacated; appeal dismissed without orders as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941
W.A.No.1323 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 13218/2019 DATED 22.05.2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
HANEEF SHIROZ, AGED 38 YEARS FORMER MANAGER,
ABDUL KHADER MEMORIAL VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THADIKADU, KOLLAM-691 306.
BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001
W.A.No.1323 of 2019 - 2 -
R5 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT.RAJI T. BHASKAR FOR R1 TO R4.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
- 3 -
W.A.No.1323 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
The appellant-writ petitioner is before this Court aggrieved with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, in a writ petition, vacating the earlier order of status-quo.
2. We have to notice the brief background facts. The appellant was the Manager appointed by an Educational Agency which is running Abdul Khader Memorial Vocational Higher Secondary School. The Educational Agency is not made a party in the writ petition. However, we are told that there are 8 Board Members, which is the governing body of the Educational Agency. The appellant was appointed as the Manager by the said Governing Body and his appointment was approved by the District Educational Officer [for brevity "DEO"] as per Exhibit P1 for a period of two years from 10.01.2017. While he was continuing as Manager, it is stated that there were certain proceedings taken against him on allegations, which we would not refer to in the judgment; and he was ousted
- 4 -
W.A.No.1323 of 2019
from the Managership. Yet another person, the 5th respondent, was appointed as Manager by the Governing Body.
3. The DEO by Exhibit P2 order refused approval to the said person finding that, out of the 7 Board members who participated in the Board, 2 were not members and one was suspended. The DEO refused approval making it subject to the decision in W.P(C) No.4921 of 2018. W.P.(C) No.4921 of 2018 was filed by one of the Board Members. Eventually this Court closed the writ petition directing the appeal filed before the Director of Public Instruction to be considered. Additional Director of Public Instruction, pursuant to the order of this Court, passed Exhibit P4, in which Exhibit P2 order was overturned and the 5th respondent was approved as the Manager.
4. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.4715 of 2019, in which there was a stay of the order passed. Later, by Exhibit P6 judgment this Court found that the term of the Manager has expired on 10.01.2019. The petitioner was directed to file a revision within a period of two weeks and a stay application before the
W.A.No.1323 of 2019
- 5 -
Government. The revision was directed to be considered expeditiously. Both the learned Counsel submits that the revision has been heard and it is reserved for orders. Now, the appellant-petitioner claims that status-quo order enured to his benefit and his continuance as Manager. Vacation of that order prejudices him especially when the revision before the Government is pending.
5. Admittedly the order of the DEO at Exhibit
P1 has ceased to have effect on 10.01.2019. Even if the revision filed before the Government is allowed, the result would be a fresh decision to be taken by the
Board and it cannot result in the continuance of the
appellant. The status-quo order cannot also help the appellant to continue after his approved period is over. In such circumstances, we do not think, there is any reason to interfere with the impugned order vacating the status-quo order and the Writ Appeal would
stand dismissed, without any order as to costs.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant
requests that it may be made clear that the observations on the allegations do not bind the
- 6 -
W.A.No.1323 of 2019
parties. We have to indicate that we have not made any reference much less any discussion or observations on the allegations; and there is no question of this judgment affecting the contentions of the appellant against the said allegations.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Vku/-
- 7 -
W.A.No.1323 of 2019
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:
| ANNEXURE | 1 | TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 01/06/2019. |
|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE | 2 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 31/05/2019. |
| ANNEXURE | I | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| ANNEXURE | II | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/05/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(CRL.) NO.155/2019. |
| ANNEXURE | III | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26/10/2018 PASSED BY SMT. SUMMAYA MAHEEN TO THE DPI. |
| ANNEXURE | IV | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 23/07/2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN BA NO.4514/2018. |
| ANNEXURE | V | TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT IN CRL. M.C.NO.6484/2018. |
| ANNEXURE | VI | TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED GIFT DEED DATED 12/12/2001 EXECUTED BY MEMBERS OF THE MANAGING BOARD IN FAVOUR OF SRI. ABDUL NAZAR. |
| ANNEXURE | VII | TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MANAGING BOARD HELD ON 02/09/2001. |
| ANNEXURE | VIII | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE MANAGEMENT BOARD COMMITTEE. |
| ANNEXURE | IX | TRUE COPY OF THE RECORDS EVIDENCING RECOVERY OF SALARY AND PENSION OF SRI.S. RAJESH AND SRI.T. VISHWANATHAN PILLAI. |
| ANNEXURE | X | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY SRI. SUHAIL BEFORE THE JFCM, PUNALOOR. |
- 8 -
W.A.No.1323 of 2019
ANNEXURE X1 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE DETAILS OF CRL. M.P. NO.3819/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PUNALUR AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE. ANNEXURE XII TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05/02/2019 ISSUED BY SRI. H.A. RAHIM TO THE HEADMASTER OF THE SCHOOL. ANNEXURE XIII TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT DATED 12/01/2017 SUBMITTED BY ONE SURESH T. ANNEXURE XIV TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE AND PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY SRI.K.C.SURJIT. ANNEXURE XV TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.798/2012 ON THE FILES OF JFMC-I, PUNALUR. ANNEXURE XVI TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY SMT. SHAFEEKAS BEFORE THE SHO, ANCHAL POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENT'S/S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAW DATED 18/12/1985. ANNEXURE R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 23/05/2018. ANNEXURE R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 10/06/2018. ANNEXURE R5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/03/2019 IN WPC NO.4715/2019.
[ TRUE COPY ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Appeal challenging the vacation of the status-quo order should be allowed despite the appellant's request.
Whether the expiration of the appellant's approved tenure precludes the continuation of the status-quo order even if his revision is allowed.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Haneef Shiroz
State of Kerala
Additional Director of Public Instructions
Deputy Director of Education
District Educational Officer, Punalur
H. A Rahim
K. Vinod Chandran
V. G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
