Partly allowed

Kunhi Anandan v. the Director of General Education

Kerala HC21 Aug 2023WP(C)/16610/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench disposed of writ petition challenging rejection of management transfer in a private school. The court quashed the rejection order, held teacher consent unnecessary for management change, and directed the authority to process the transfer application without requiring consent of the owner-teacher.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 quashed; 2nd respondent directed to consider application for transfer of management without insisting on teacher consent; order to be passed within two months.

Kunhi Anandan Vs the Director of General Education — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 16610 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

1KUNHI ANANDAN
AGED 75 YEARS
S/O. KARITHIYANI AMMA KOMMINARY HOUSE, POST
VYKKILISSERY VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN -
673101

¶7

2VASANTHAKUMARI
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O. KUNHI ANANDAN KOMMINARY HOUSE, POST VYKKILISSERY
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN - 673101
3NISHA
AGED 49 YEARS
KUNHI ANANDAN KOMMINARY HOUSE, POST VYKKILISSERY
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN - 673101
4JISHA RAJESH
AGED 43 YEARS
D/O. KUNHI ANANDAN KOMMINARY HOUSE, POST VYKKILISSERY
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN - 673101
BY ADVS.
R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
ATHIRA A.MENON

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695014

¶10

2 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN - 673101

¶11

3 LISHA K V D/O. KUNHI ANANDAN LPSA, ARAKKILAD JB SCHOOL POST CHORODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN - 673106 BY ADV ADV. K. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

G.P V. VENUGOPAL

¶14

WP(C) NO. 16610 OF 2023

¶15

-2-

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 16610 OF 2023

¶18

-3-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Dated this the 21^st day of August, 2023)

¶21

The Manager of the Arakkilad Junior Basic School, Vatakara was one Sri. Sankara Kurup. He transferred the management along with the property to his nephew/1^st petitioner as per the registered sale deed of the year 1987. In August 1995, the 1^st petitioner executed a settlement deed by which the property of the School vested in the name of his wife/2^nd petitioner, and petitioners 3 and 4 and the 3^rd respondent. The 1^st respondent accorded sanction for transfer of management in favour of the 2^nd petitioner by order dated 15.03.1997 and the order was approved with effect from 03.08.1995.

¶22

The right of petitioners 1 and 2 over the property was released in favour of the 4^th petitioner as per the registered document dated 28.11.2021 of SRO Vatakara. Thus, the ownership of the school property became vested in petitioners 3

¶23

WP(C) NO. 16610 OF 2023

¶24

-4-

¶25

and 4 and the 3^rd respondent. The 4^th petitioner was having half

¶26

right and the 3^rd petitioner along with the 3^rd respondent are having the remaining half right over the School property.

¶27

On 28.10.2020, the 2^nd petitioner, due to ill health,

¶28

submitted a request before the 2^nd respondent for change of Manager as per Rule 4(1) of Chapter III of KER. Though the consent of the teachers is not a statutory requirement for a change of Manager, the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners obtained the signature of the 3^rd respondent in the consent letter being a teacher working in the school. As per Rule 8(1) of Chapter III of KER, a member of the educational agency is not entitled to

¶29

an appointment as a teacher. Therefore, she cannot be appointed as a Manager also.

¶30

The 2^nd respondent by communication dated 13.12.2021 returned the request by stating that the 2^nd petitioner has informed that she is unable to produce her

¶31

WP(C) NO. 16610 OF 2023

¶32

-5-

¶33

husband's consent and other children except the 4^th petitioner for transfer of management not involving change of ownership. .

¶34

The petitioner, therefore, submitted an appeal under

¶35

Rule 4(3) of Chapter III of KER before the 1^st respondent producing the consent letter dated 04.03.2022 executed by petitioners 1 and 3. A direction was also obtained from this Court in W.P.(C) No.17758/2022 to consider the appeal within a period of three months. In compliance of the directions of this Court, the 1^st respondent conducted an online hearing of the appeal and issued Ext.P6 order, directing the 2^nd respondent to transfer management in favour of the 4^th petitioner on production of the original documents.

¶36

The 2^nd respondent, thereafter, rejected the transfer of management by Ext.P7, for the reason that an objection/complaint has been raised by the 3^rd respondent stating that she has not signed in the document giving consent

¶37

WP(C) NO. 16610 OF 2023

¶38

-6-

¶39

for the transfer of management. The main reason for rejecting the request in Ext.P7 is that when a report was called for from the Headmaster of the School regarding the signature affixed in the application for change of management, the Headmaster reported that the 3^rd respondent had not signed the document in front of him and the Manager has taken the document to her house and obtained the signature of the 3^rd respondent and the Headmaster has only countersigned it. On this report, the 2^nd respondent took the view that since the application was not signed by the 3^rd respondent, the change of management could not be effected.

¶40

For consideration of a change of management of a school, the consent of the teachers is not necessary. It is true that the petitioners 3 and 4 and 3^rd respondent have ownership of the school and because of the bar of a teacher becoming a Manager, the 3^rd respondent cannot aspire to be a Manager of

¶41

WP(C) NO. 16610 OF 2023

¶42

-7-

¶43

the school. The reason stated in Ext.P7 that the consent

¶44

obtained from the 3^rd respondent through the signature is not a valid consent and therefore, the transfer cannot be effected is not

¶45

correct. Through Ext.P6, the 1^st respondent has directed the 2^nd respondent to effect the transfer of management on production of original documents, but the 2^nd respondent has gone one step ahead and rejected the application for transfer as per Ext.P7.

¶46

The rejection cannot stand the test of law, and it is against the provisions of KER.

¶47

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶48

a) Ext.P7 is quashed.

¶49

b) The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the application for transfer of management in light of Ext.P6 direction issued by the 1^st respondent without insisting for consent of any of the teachers including the 3^rd respondent who has the right in the property.

¶50

WP(C) NO. 16610 OF 2023

¶51

-8-

¶52

c) The order shall be passed within a period of two months

¶53

from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 16610 OF 2023

¶59

-9-

¶60

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16610/2023

¶61

`PETITIONER EXH`	`IBITS`
`Exhibit-P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT DATED 31.03.1997`
`Exhibit-P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SETTLEMENT` `DEED NO. 875/2020 OF SRO VATAKARA` `EXECUTED BY PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 IN` `FAVOUR OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED` `03.11.2020`
`EXHIBIT-P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED` `BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 28.10.2020` `ALONG WITH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS`
`Exhibit-P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.` `C/3442/20/D.DIS FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 13.12.2021`
`EXHIBIT-P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT CONSENT LETTER` `DATED 04.03.2022 ATTESTED BY A NOTARY` `PUBLIC EXECUTED BY PETITIONERS 1 AND 3` `ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL`
`Exhibit-P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.` `G2/1885/2022/DGE/K.DIS OF THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2022`
`Exhibit-P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K.DIS` `C/2728/2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED` `25.03.2023`

Kunhi Anandan v. the Director of General Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhi Anandan v. the Director of General Education

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

The Manager, Vs the State of Kerala

The Principal Vs Mahatma Gendhi University

The Manager, Thekkummuri High School Vs the State of Kerala

Alan Alex Reji Vs State of Kerala

K.K. Chathu Achan, Vs the State of Kerala

Aleena Ramesh Vs the Controller of Examinations