Dismissed

Abdul Rasheedkutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2020WP(C)/19977/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging Deputy Director's approval of school by-laws without interdicting admissions. Court found prior hearing mandate substantially complied, dismissed petition, and directed DGE to decide stay petition first, maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Liberty to pursue remedies before competent authority. Directed DGE to dispose of stay petition and representation within specified timeframes. Status quo maintained regarding scho

Abdul Rasheedkutty Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.19977 OF 2020(V)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ABDUL RASHEEDKUTTY

¶8

AGED 60 YEARS

¶9

S/O.ABDUL KHADERKUTTY, KUTTIYIL VEEDU, EDAVANASSERY, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 519.

¶10

2 C.Y.NIZAM, AGED 56 YEARS YOOUSUFKUTTY, CHARUVILAYIL (KUTTIYIL), VENGAI P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA-690 521, KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,

¶15

JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

3 DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

4 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THEVALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 009.

¶18

5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,

¶19

KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 013.

¶20

6 MISRIYAKUNJU,

¶21

EZHICHINETUVEEDU, KADATHURMURI, THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY-690 539, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶22

7 SHAJAHAN,

¶23

S/O.SULAIMANKUNJU, EZHICHINETHUVEEDU, KADATHURUMURI, THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 539.

¶24

8 UMAIBABEEVI,

¶25

BABU NIVAS, POORAM NAGAR NO.71, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 002.

¶26

9 AANEESH BASHEER

¶27

KULIRMA, PADANAYARKULANGARA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690 518, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶28

WP(C).No.19977 OF 2020(V)

¶29

¶30

10	MAJEEDA BEEVI, THAZHCHAYIL VEEDU, SOUTH T.B.ROAD, CHANGANASSERY P.O., CHANGANASSERY-686 101.
11	NOORJAHAN AYSHAS, MULANKADAKAM WARD, KANKATHUMUKKU, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM WEST-691 012.
12	TAJUNEESA, W/O.MAHBOOB, HEERA GARDEN, MUSEUM WARD, KANAKAKUNNU NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
13	A.NAZARUDHEEN
	KUTTIYIL PADINJATTAYIL, KADAPPA, MNYAGAPPALLY P.O., PIN-690 519, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
14	C.Y.SHYAM, KUTTIYIL VEEDU, VENGA P.O., SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM-690 521.
15	SHANAVAS, S/O.MUHAMMEDHKUTTY, KUTTIYIL VADAKKETHIL (SHANAVAS MANZIL), VENGA P.O., SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 521.
16	K.ABOOBAKKER KUTTY, S/O.KUNJU MOIDEEN KUNJU, RESIDING AT DARUL VAHEEDA 46, SAMSAM NAGAR, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM-691 010.
17	HUSSAIN KHAN, BABU NIVAS, POORAM NAGAR NO.71, ASHRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM.
18	PRINCIPAL,
	MILAD-E-SHERIFF HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MYNAGAPPALLY, VENGA P.O., KOLLAM-690 521.
19	HEAD MASTER, MILAD-E-SHERIFF BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, MYNAGAPPALLY, VENGA P.O., KOLLAM-690 521.
20	HEADMASTER, MILAD-E-SHERIFF BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, MYNAGAPPALLY, VENGA P.O., KOLLAM-690 521.
	R6-7 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.JENZIA
	R8-12, R16-17 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
	R8-12, R16-17 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
	R8-12, R16-17 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH
	R8-12, R16-17 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
	R8-12, R16-17 BY ADV. SRI.R.GITHESH
	R8-12, R16-17 BY ADV. SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
	R8-12, R16-17 BY ADV. SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.

¶31

WP(C).No.19977 OF 2020(V)

¶32

¶33

R8-12, R16-17 BY ADV. SMT.HANI P.NAIR R8-12, R16-17 BY ADV. SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE R13-14 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) R13-14 BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL R13-14 BY ADV. SRI.MANU SRINATH R15 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.DILEEP R15 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN G. GEORGE

¶34

OTHER PRESENT:

¶35

SMT. NISHA BOSE - SR.GP

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

WP(C).No.19977 OF 2020(V)

¶38

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a prayer that respondents 1 to 5 be directed to take necessary action to interdict appointments and admissions in the Management Quota in the Milad-e-sheriff Higher Secondary School, Mynagappally, Kollam, till a Manager is appointed for the School, based on the provisions in Ext.P2 By-laws. The petitioners have also pray that the 5 th respondent be directed to take over the management of the School until a proper Manager is appointed.

¶41

2 . When this matter was considered by me on 30.09.2020, after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, as also the learned Senior Counsel, Sri.S.Sreekumar appearing for the School, I had directed that all admissions in the Management Quota be done by the School only on merits.

¶42

3 . Subsequently, I considered this matter on 14.10.2020; wherein, I clarified that the Deputy Director of Education is at liberty to continue with respect to the By-laws of the School, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides, but that no final orders be issued without the permission of this Court.

¶43

WP(C).No.19977 OF 2020(V)

¶44

¶45

4 . On the next occasion, the learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Nisha Bose, produced the proceedings of the Deputy Director of Education dated 11.11.2020 in a sealed cover and it was opened by this Court in the presence of all counsel. I noticed that in the said order the Authority had taken certain decisions, after hearing both sides but the final decision had been deferred in view of the orders of this Court.

¶46

5 . Finally, on 30.11.2020, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that final directions with respect to the By-laws of the School can be issued if this Court permits. I had therefore, ordered as under on that day:

¶47

“The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.Nisha Bose, submits that final orders in terms of the directions of this Court, dated 16.11.2020, will be issued soon. She submits that the proceedings have been delayed on account of the fact that the powers-ofattorney of the trustees have not yet been produced.

¶48

2 . The learned Senior Counsel for the party respondents, Sri.S.Sreekumar, submits that it is only on account of the national holidays in UAE that the powers-ofattorney have not been produced and that the same will be produced at the earliest.

¶49

3 . Sri.V.Philip Mathews, learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶50

WP(C).No.19977 OF 2020(V)

¶51

¶52

submitted that the powers-of-attorney that has been now called upon to be produced is, in fact, intended to cover up a forgery and therefore, prayed that the Deputy Director be not permitted to complete the process.

¶53

4 . Even when I hear Sri.Philip Mathews as afore, I am certain that this Court will not be justified in considering the matter as if I am the first Authority to deal with the approval of the by-laws of the Trust. I am certain that the competent Authority will look into all these aspects while final orders are issued, for which necessary opportunity will also be given to the parties.

¶54

I, therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 21.12.2020; within which time, the Deputy Director will ensure that the final orders are placed before this Court.”

¶55

6 . Today, when this matter was called, the learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Nisha Bose, submitted that final orders have been issued by the Deputy Director on 11.12.2020 and that the petitioners have, in fact, invoked their alternative remedy against the same, by filing a representation before the Director of General Education (DGE). She therefore, prayed that this writ petition be closed.

¶56

7 . Sri.Philip Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently opposed the afore submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader, saying that even though

¶57

WP(C).No.19977 OF 2020(V)

¶58

¶59

this Court had, in the order dated 30.11.2020, directed the Deputy Director to afford necessary opportunity to all parties including his client, the order dated 11.12.2020 has been issued without hearing his client. He therefore, prayed that the said order be not allowed to operate.

¶60

8 . The learned Senior Counsel for the party respondents, Sri.S.Sreekumar, however, responded that the allegations of the petitioner, as voiced in the writ petition, are no longer relevant since the competent Authority, namely the Deputy Director, has already issued the order dated 11.12.2020 approving the By-laws of the School. He submitted that Ext.P2 cannot be even considered at all for the reasons that have been stated in the said order and also prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶61

9 . As is luculent from the above narrative, the petitioner assails the order dated 11.12.2020 issued by the Deputy Director of Education on the ground that it has been issued without affording an opportunity of being heard to him, in spite of the directions afore extracted.

¶62

10. However, the fact remains that the order dated 11.11.2020, which was earlier produced before this Court by the

¶63

WP(C).No.19977 OF 2020(V)

¶64

¶65

Deputy Director, records that all the parties were heard before it had been issued and that only a formal decision thereupon is required to be taken.

¶66

11. Obviously, therefore, the mandate of this Court, that all the parties should be given an opportunity of being heard, has been substantially complied with the Deputy Director and I see no reason why the order dated 11.12.2020 should be interdicted in any manner by this Court at this stage, particularly when the petitioner also confirms that he has invoked his alternative remedy against the same. Of course, the contention of Sri.Philip Mathew is that, at least until such time as the DGE takes a decision on the stay application filed by his client, the approval granted in the order dated 11.12.2020 be not allowed to operate.

¶67

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and leave liberty to the parties to pursue their remedies before the competent Statutory Authority, as they are advised; with a concomitant direction to the Director of General Education to take up the representation and the stay petition stated to have been filed by the petitioner and to first dispose of the said petition after affording opportunities of being heard to all sides,

¶68

WP(C).No.19977 OF 2020(V)

¶69

¶70

as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. After the stay petition is so dealt with, the said Authority will dispose of the representation of the petitioner in terms of law within a further period of three weeks thereafter.

¶71

Needless to say, until such time as the orders on the stay petition is communicated to the petitioner, the status quo as on today will continue with respect to the management of the School.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶74

JUDGE

¶75

¶76

WP(C).No.19977 OF 2020(V)

¶77

¶78

APPENDIX

¶79

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶80

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.26737 AND 23040 OF 2011 DATED 16.01.2012. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 22.02.2012 CREATING TRUST FRO MANAGEMENT OF THE SCHOOL. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2012 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.06.2020 ADDRESSED TO THE FIFTH RESPONDENT AGAINST APPROVAL OF MANAGER. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.III/56/2015 DATED 22.07.2015 KARUNAGPPALLY SRO STATING THAT EXHIBIT P2 IS CANCELLED. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.20 IN WPC NO.14678/20.

¶81

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 03.08.2020 REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

¶82

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 03.08.2020 REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

¶83

EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 05.08.2020 REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER IN MSS HS FOR BOYS.

¶84

EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 05.08.2020 BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST APPOINTMENT AND ADMISSION IN MANAGEMENT QUOTA ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.

¶85

WP(C).No.19977 OF 2020(V)

¶86

¶87

EXHIBIT P11	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 07.08.2020 AGAINST APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT REPRESENTATION.
EXHIBIT P12	COPY OF DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST ADMISSION OF STUDENTS IN MANAGEMENT QUOTA ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT P13	COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 04.09.2020 BY THE PRINCIPAL MS HSS MYNAGAPALLY SHOWING THAT MANAGER HAS NOT BEEN APPOINTED IN THE SCHOOL.
EXHIBIT P14	COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 21.07.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15	COPY OF REPLY DATED 13.08.2020 IN RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT P14.
EXHIBIT P16	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.08.2020 FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT REGARDING HEARING ON 16.09.2020.

¶88

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶89

EXHIBIT R8(a):	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OP NO.1174/2000 DATED 04/10/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R8(b):	TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.3210 OF 2002 DATED 25/10/2002.
EXHIBIT R8(c):	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA.NO.2664 OF 2002 DATED 08/11/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R8(d):	TRUE COPY OF UDAMPADI EXECUTED FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE SCHOOLS.
EXHIBIT R8(e):	TRUE COPY OF SUIT AS O.S.NO.115 OF 2020 FILED BY NASARUDEEN THE BROTHER OF 1ST PETITIONER AND 13TH RESPONDENT C.Y.SYAM, BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, SASTHAMKOTTA.

Abdul Rasheedkutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rasheedkutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayswarya P.A Vs Ajayan

Surasan V.P Vs Steel Industrials Kerala Limited

B. Jayakrishnan, Vs Steel Industrials Kerala Limited

All Kerala Private College Teachers Association (Akpcta) Vs State of Kerala

Ancy Chacko Kalathil, Vs the State of Kerala

P.Padmaja Devi Vs the State of Kerala