Partly allowed

Rev. M . Mohanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Apr 2023WP(C)/9418/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an order requiring countersignature by a discharged Administrator from the Madras High Court. The court directed the Director of General Education to consider the amended bye-laws within one month and approve the Corporate Manager within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Ext.P11 set aside; 2nd Respondent directed to consider amended bye-laws within one month and approve Corporate Manager within two weeks; Declaration against mandatory countersignature by erst

Rev. M . Mohanan Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9418 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 REV. M . MOHANAN PRESIDENT, TRIVANDRUM SYNOD - INDIA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH (IELC), C.L.H.S.S. COMPOUND, PEROORKADA. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695005 2 CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF LUTHERAN SCHOOLS TRIVANDRUM SYNOD - INDIA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH (IELC), C.L.H.S.S. COMPOUND, PEROORKADA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695005 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BY ADVS. LIJU.V.STEPHEN INDU SUSAN JACOB P.M.HRIDYA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695014 3 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICE, CHERTHALA, PIN – 688524 BY ADV.SMT.SURYA BINOY, SENIOR GP

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO. 9418 OF 2023

¶12

¶13

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(C)No. 9418 of 2023

¶16

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2023

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The above writ petition is filed with the following

¶19

prayers:

¶20

“(i) To call the records leading to Exbt. 11 (ii) To set aside Ext.P11 and to direct the 3 rd respondent to consider and pass orders on the application leading to Ext.P11 order in accordance with the law.

¶21

(iii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to consider and pass orders on the Ext. P9 application filed by the Petitioners seeking approval of the appointment of the Corporate Manager of the 2 nd Petitioner in accordance with the law and within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶22

(iv) To declare that the orders passed by the Corporate Manager of the 2 nd petitioner institution to be approved in accordance with the law, without insisting to be countersigned by the erstwhile Administrator appointed by the High Court of Madras in Tr. C.S No. 741/2017.

¶23

¶24

WP(C) NO. 9418 OF 2023

¶25

(v) Petitioner also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language.

¶26

(vi) To grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstance of the case deems fit and appropriate.”[SIC]

¶27

The 1^st petitioner is the synod of the IELC Church, which is a Christian Mission and Charitable institution. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1^st petitioner has 23 aided institutions in the State of Kerala. During the year 2017-2018, the High Court of Madras appointed an Administrator to conduct the election of the IELC Church, and until then to monitor the administration of the Church as per its Bye-law. It is the case of the petitioner that, by a judgment of this Court, it was directed that the orders passed by the Corporate Manager of the petitioner's educational institution should be counter-signed by the Administrator appointed by the High Court of Madras.

¶28

¶29

WP(C) NO. 9418 OF 2023

¶30

It is stated that, as per the direction of the Apex Court, the Administrator conducted the election of the IELC Church and the Synod, and thereafter the Administrator was discharged from his duty, and the administration of the Church and its institutions were handed over by the Administrator to the newly elected office bearers of the Church and the Synods. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents still insist that the erstwhile Administrator appointed by the Madras High Court has to countersign the orders passed by the petitioners and the Corporate Manager, thereby putting the petitioners and their educational institutions into severe hardship. Hence this Writ Petition is filed.

¶31

Heard counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

¶32

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the administrator appointed by the

¶33

¶34

WP(C) NO. 9418 OF 2023

¶35

Madras High Court conducted the election and as per Ext.P6 he was discharged from the office of the administrator. The counsel submitted that, in such circumstances, Ext.P11 is unsustainable. The Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the officer concerned was not aware of the fact that the administrator was already discharged from his duties. The Government Pleader also submitted that the authority concerned will do the needful on condition that the petitioner will produce the amended Bye-law before the DGE. The Government Pleader submitted that, on approval of the amended Bye-law, the DGE can consider the question of approval of the manger. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amended Bye-law is already produced before the DGE. If that is the case, the 2^nd respondent can reconsider the matter regarding the approval of Byelaw and also the approval of the management in the

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 9418 OF 2023

¶38

light of the fact that the election is conducted. In the light of the subsequent events, Ext.P11 can be set aside.

¶39

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶40

i. Ext.P11 is set aside.

¶41

ii. The 2^nd respondent is directed to

¶42

consider the amended Bye-law submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this judgment.

¶43

iii. Based on that order, the 2^nd respondent will consider the approval of the Corporate manager, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date on which the above order is passed.

¶44

iv. It is declared that the 2^nd respondent

¶45

WP(C) NO. 9418 OF 2023

¶46

¶47

shall not insist the counter signing of the erstwhile Administrator appointed by the High Court of Madras in Tr.C.S No.741/2017.

¶48

v. Petitioners will produce a stamped certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶51

¶52

WP(C) NO. 9418 OF 2023

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9418/2023

¶55

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶56

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED BYE-LAW OF THE IELC SCHOOLS OF THE TRIVANDRUM SYNOD ORDER NO.G4-6656/72/R.DIS DATED 16/05/1975 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2018 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN TR. C.S NO. 741/2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 16-9-2021 IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1143/2021 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-22022 PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP NO. 18100/2021 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION RESULTS OF THE IELC TRIVANDRUM SYNOD DECLARED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR DATED 12-9-2022 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 3110-2022 FILED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN TR. C.S NO. 741/2017 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-122022 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER APPOINTING THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER INSTITUTIONS EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DGE/527/2023/ET4 DATED 3-2-2023 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶57

WP(C) NO. 9418 OF 2023

¶58

¶59

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27-12-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CORPORATE MANAGER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED BYE-LAW OF THE IELC SCHOOLS OF THE 2ND PETITIONER PRODUCED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-22023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶60

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶61

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Rev. M . Mohanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rev. M . Mohanan 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saritha K Vs the District Educational Officer

Shihab Thangal Educational & Charitable Trust, Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Thahir, Vs Cvm Shereef

Alex Mathew Vs Union of India

Sreeja K Vs the State of Kerala

Kunjamma. P Vs Girija.K.R