Allowed

P.K.Ramdas v. the Deputy Director of Education – Kannur

Kerala HC5 Apr 2024WP(C)/4147/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging the approval and subsequent setting aside of a school manager's appointment due to disputed elections and bye-law validity. The Court held that educational authorities cannot go into the correctness of elections; the impugned order setting aside approval was illegal. Approval upheld.

What did the court decide?

W.P.(C) No. 35765/2022 allowed; W.P.(C) No. 4147/2023 dismissed. Impugned order Ext.P32 set aside; approval of petitioner as Manager upheld.

P.K.Ramdas Vs the Deputy Director of Education – Kannur — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 35765 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 THE IRITTY HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY, (NO.S.16/1955 OF REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KANNUR AT THALASSERY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. K.T.ANOOP,

¶8

S/O. LATE. MADHUSOODANAN VAZHUNNAVAR, AGED 58 YEARS,
RETIRED TEACHER, RESIDING AT 'ANUSREE', PALAPARAMBA,
P.O.KEEZHOOR, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT-, PIN - 670703

¶9

2 SRI. K.T.ANOOP,

¶10

AGED 58 YEARS

¶11

S/O. LATE. MADHUSOODANAN VAZHUNNAVAR, AGED 58 YEARS,
RETIRED TEACHER, RESIDING AT 'ANUSREE', PALAPARAMBA,
P.O.KEEZHOOR, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT-, PIN - 670703

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

NISHA GEORGE

¶14

GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)(K/000570/1979)

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001

¶17

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

¶18

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR, KANNUR

¶19

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶20

¶21

DISTRICT., PIN - 670001

¶22

4 DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, THALASSERY EDUCATION DISTRICT, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-, PIN - 670101

¶23

5SRI. P.K.RAMDAS,
AGED 60 YEARS
(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOW TO PETITIONER), AGED 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 'ARPITAM', KEERIYODE, EDAKKANAM, IRITTY,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670703

¶24

6SRI. K.KUNHIMADHAVAN,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. OTHENAN NAYANAR, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT
'SREELAKSHMI', P.O.KEEZHUR, IRITTY-, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670703

¶25

BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶26

Adv.M.P.Sreekrishnan
A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA(K/859-A/2015)
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA

¶27

OTHER PRESENT:

¶28

PREMCHAND V NAIR SR GP

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.3.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).4147/2023, THE COURT ON 05.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶31

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 4147 OF 2023

¶35

PETITIONER/S:

¶36

1P.K.RAMDAS

¶37

AGED 60 YEARS
PRESIDENT, IRITTY HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY, KIZHOOR P.O.,
IRITTY, PIN - 670703

¶38

2 K.KUNHIMADHAVAN AGED 68 YEARS

¶39

S/O. OTHENAN NAINAR, SECRETARY, IRITTY HIGH SCHOOL
SOCIETY, KIZHOOR P.O., IRITTY, PIN - 670703

¶40

BY ADVS.

¶41

M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
SONY BENNY
A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA

¶42

RESPONDENT/S:

¶43

1 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION - KANNUR OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670001

¶44

2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER - THALASSERI 4TH FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, M.G.ROAD, THALASSERI, KANNUR, PIN - 670101

¶45

3THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION
O/O. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION, JAGATHI P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶46

4 THE STATE OF KERALA

¶47

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶48

¶49

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶50

5K.T.ANOOP
16/55, ANUSREE, PALAPARAMBU P.O., KEEZHUR, IRITTY, PIN
- 670703

¶51

BY ADVS.
PREMCHAND V. NAIR, SR.GP
NISHA GEORGE
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)(K/000570/1979)

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.3.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).35765/2022, THE COURT ON 05.04.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶53

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶54

¶55

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J

¶56

W.P(C) Nos.35765 of 2022 and 4147 of 2023

¶57

Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2024

¶58

JUDGMENT

¶59

W.P(C) No. 35765/2022 is f i led by the Iritty High School Society as the f i rst petitioner and Sri.K.T.Anoop as the second petitioner, challenging Ext.P32 order passed by the f i rst respondent and also for a declaration that in view of Ext.P1 and P2 Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations and Ext.P4 common judgment of the Munsif's Court, f Kuthuparamba, a further approval of the Constitution or the bye-law of the Iritty High School is not required under Chapter III Rule 2 of KER since it is an “existing” school as on the date of commencement of Kerala Education Act and Rules.

¶60

W.P(C) No. 4147/2023 is f i led by Sri. P.K. Ramdas and Sri.K. Kunhimadhavan, claiming to be the President and the Secretary respectively of Iritty High School Society, (who are respondents 5 and 6 in W.P(C) No.35765/2022) challenging Ext.P1 order dated 12.7.2022 of the 1st respondent Deputy Director of Education.

¶61

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶62

¶63

3. For convenience, the facts and documents as referred to in W.P(C) No.35765/2022 are being narrated f i rst treating it as the leading case. The Society was registered in 1955 on the basis of Ext.P1 Memorandum of Association and Ext.P2 Rules and Regulations. It is the said Society that established the Iritty High School. By Ext.P4 judgment dated 31/01/2011 in O.S.No.432/1990 and O.S.No.150/1992, the District Educational Oficer was f directed to identify the members and to conduct election to the of f ice bearers of the Society. The members were to be ascertained strictly in accordance with the documents in the suit namely, Exts.A2, A17 and X2 series. Though an appeal was preferred against the same, it was later withdrawn and therefore Ext.P4 has become f i nal.

¶64

4. Following Ext.P4, it is stated that elections were conducted twice in 2011 and 2014. In 2014, the sixth respondent was elected as the Secretary and he had applied for approving his appointment as Manager. It was stated that the approved constitution was irrecoverably lost and a notarized afidavit f was produced before the third respondent. Based on the application and the sworn afidavit, a Constitution presented by the sixth respondent was f approved by the third respondent. Petitioner submits that the approval so obtained through Ext.P9 was by practising fraud, as there was no necessity for the formation of such a Constitution.

¶65

5. As the election was not conducted thereafter despite the completion of tenure, O.S.No.229/2017 was f i led before the Munsif's Court, f

¶66

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶67

¶68

Kuthuparamba by Dr. Abdul Rahiman Poyilan, another member of the Society. Suppressing the f i ling of the above suit, W.P.(C) No.22494/2017 was f i led by the sixth respondent seeking to conduct an election in accordance with the newly approved Constitution/bye-law. This Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct an election as per Ext.P11 judgment. Following this an election was conducted and the sixth respondent claimed to have been appointed as the Manager.

¶69

6. A review f i led against Ext.P11 judgment was allowed and the judgment was recalled by Ext.P12 and the writ petition was restored. An appeal f i led against the same was also dismissed. The petitioners therefore submit that the election and all actions taken under Ext.P11 judgment cannot survive.

¶70

7. In the meantime, there was an attempt to remove the second petitioner from membership which was challenged in O.S.No.205/2019, wherein an interim order of status-quo was passed. The suit was later withdrawn as it was admitted in the written statement that Sri. Anoop is a member.

¶71

8. Complaining that no election was conducted, one of the members K.T.Jayaprakash f i led O.S.No.183/2020 to conduct elections in accordance with Ext.P2 Rules. When the petitioner came to know about the approval of the new constitution, a complaint was f i led before the second respondent to take action. After hearing the parties, an order was passed entrusting the

¶72

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶73

¶74

management of the school to the fourth respondent till the completion of the civil disputes as per Ext.P17 order. It was also mentioned in the said order that the election conducted pursuant to Ext.P11 judgment and approval of the sixth respondent as Manager also did not survive. Ext.P17 was unsuccessfully challenged in W.P.(C) No. 11415/2020 and W.A.No.955/2020.

¶75

9. As no election was conducted after 2014, the second petitioner and K.T.Jayaprakash convened a General Body Meeting on 26/09/2021 after issuing notice to the members including the sixth respondent and the second petitioner was elected as the Secretary. As a fresh election was conducted following Ext.P1 and P2, the suits f i led to conduct an election were withdrawn. Following the election, the second petitioner applied before the educational authorities to approve him as the Manager of the School, but the same was not granted. However, in the appeal, the second respondent directed the fourth respondent to approve the second petitioner as Manager and the approval is valid till 21/04/2025 as per Ext.P24.

¶76

10. In the meantime, the f i fth and the sixth respondents conducted an election in accordance with the new constitution on 17/04/2022 and f i led a list of of f icer bearers. The petitioner had approached the Registrar of Societies to remove the f i ling made by the f i fth and the sixth respondents. The approval of the second petitioner as Manager was challenged by the f i fth and the sixth respondents before the Government. Before the revision was decided, the second respondent had passed an order dated 12/07/2022,

¶77

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶78

¶79

Ext.P31 setting aside the new Constitution approved at the instance of the sixth respondent. It is the said order that is challenged in W.P.(C) No.4147/2023. This factum was brought to the notice of the revisional authority during the f i nal hearing of Ext.P28 revision. The revision petition f i led by the f i fth and the sixth respondents was allowed and the approval of the second respondent as Manager was set aside by Ext.P32 order, which is challenged in W.P.(C) No.35765/2022.

¶80

11. W.P.(C) No.4147/2023 is f i led by the sixth respondent seeking to challenge Ext.P1 order dated 12/07/2022 which is the same as Ext.P31 in W.P. (C) No.35765/2022.

¶81

Heard Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. L.Navaneeth Krishnan in W.P(C) No. 35765/2022, Sri. M.P. Sreekrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C) No.4147/2023 and Sri. Premchand R. Nair, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶82

13. This Court had passed an order on 19.6.2023 to make available certif i ed copies of Exts.A2 and A3 documents produced in O.S.Nos. 432/1990 and 152/1992 for perusal. Another order was passed on 20.7.2023 directing the production of certif i ed copies of Exts.A2 and A3 documents and also Exts.B10 and B11 documents produced in the suit. In response to the above orders, by intimation dated 14.7.2023 from the Munsif f Court, Kuthuparamba, it was stated that Exts.A2 and A3 in the suit were already returned to the plaintifs through their lawyer and though a request was made from the court, f

¶83

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶84

¶85

the party stated that they could not trace out the original documents. By order dated 10.8.2023, the District Registrar, Tellicherry was directed to produce the original of the Memorandum of Association of the Iritty High School Society produced as Ext.A2 document and also the Rules and Regulations produced as Ext.A3 document, both of the year 1954. The same was produced and this Court, by order dated 22.8.2023, directed to retain the attested copies of the two documents mentioned above and the originals were returned. Again, an order was passed on 6.2.2024 directing the District Registrar (General), Thalassery, to intimate whether there has been any amendment to the Memorandum of Association or to the Rules and Regulations of the school. A memo, dated 19.2.2024 intimating the response of the District Registrar (General) dated 17.2.2024, was f i led in response to the same stating that no amendment was made after its registration in the year 1955. In view of the above developments, it has to be taken that no amendment has been made either to the Memorandum of Association or to the Rules and Regulations of the Iritty High School Society (Registration No.S.161955) after this date.

¶86

It is seen that as per Ext. P11 judgment in W.P(C) No.22494/2017 dated 13.7.2017 filed by the manager of the Iritty High School, an advocate commissioner was appointed to conduct the election. Thereafter, a review was filed by three members of the Iritty High School Society as RP 892/2017 and by order dated 6.2.2019, the learned Single Judge who directed the conduct

¶87

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶88

¶89

of the election found that all the facts were not disclosed and recalled the judgment and restored the writ petition to file. The said order passed in the review was again challenged in Writ Appeal No.1534/2019 by the fifth and sixth respondents wherein the writ petition was also called for and by a common judgment dated 18.10.2019 the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal filed against the order in review, further held that the election to a corporate management was purely a private affair and had nothing to do with any public function and therefore the request for conducting an election to a private body was not a matter which this court could have adjudicated. This court also noticed that there was already a pending civil suit. It was open for any aggrieved party to approach the Civil Court and obtain appropriate reliefs either to conduct an election or for other reliefs, as the case may be, and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition itself.

¶90

O.S.No.205/2019 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba was filed by K.T. Anoop, the second petitioner in W.P(C) No.35765/2022 praying for a declaration that he is a member of the first defendant society and also for passing an order of injunction restraining the defendants therein from expelling the plaintiff from the society by deleting his name. An order of status quo regarding the petitioner's membership in the Iritty High School Society was passed in the said suit on 11.6.2019. Thereafter, by order dated 25.5.2020 the Director of General Education passed an order noting the pendency of two suits, namely O.S.No.229/2017 and O.S.No.205/2019 and

¶91

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶92

¶93

accordingly directed the managership of the school to be performed by District Educational Officer, Thalassery, till the culmination of the disputes. By Ext.P18 a notice was issued for a General Body Meeting by the petitioners fixing the date as 26.9.2021 also issued to the petitioner in the connected writ petition. Through Ext.P19 proceedings, a meeting was held on 26.9.2021 and an election was also conducted which is seen from Ext.P20. Ext.P20 was filed before the Registrar of Societies on 29.10.2021. Ext.P21 details of the election and the office bearers were intimated to the DEO on 29.9.2021. By Ext.P2 dated 7.12.2021 the DEO informed the second petitioner that since cases were pending regarding the management the list of office bearers sent as per Ext.P21 cannot be accepted. By Ext.P23 dated 27.3.2022 the society addressed the Additional Director General, Directorate of General Education for approving the office bearers of the society and also to approve the Secretary as the manager of the school and to give directions to the DEO, Thalassery to hand over the charge of the manager of the school to the Secretary of the society. By Ext.P24 dated 22.4.2022, the Additional Director found that the reasoning of the District Educational Officer not approving the appointment of Sri.K.T.Anoop was wrong and directed the DEO to pass orders appointing him, which was complied with by Ext.P25 dated 7.5.2022 by the DEO, Thalassery approving the appointment of Sri. KT Anoop for three years from 22.4.2022.

¶94

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶95

¶96

Thereafter, by Ext.P26, the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 4147/2023 issued a notice proposing an election on 17.4.2022. The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 35765/2022 had filed Exts.P27 and P27A before the District Registrar not to accept the list of office bearers submitted by P.K. Ramdas and others. P.K. Ramdas and others had also filed a revision before the Government as Ext.P28, challenging the order approving Sri. Anoop as the Manager of the school, dated 22.4.2022 as well as the consequential order dated 7.5.2022 passed by the 4th respondent. Objections were filed by Sri. K.T. Anoop and after hearing both sides, the revision preferred by P.K. Ramdas and others was allowed setting aside the election conducted by the faction of P.K. Anoop and others and also holding that the election was not transparent. Earlier, by Ext.P31, which is the order impugned in W.P(C) No.4147/2023, the Director had found by order dated 25.6.2022 that the revised constitution/bye-law approved at the instance of P.K.Ramdas and others cannot be accepted as there are contradictions between the bye-law of the society as well as the revised one and directed the District Educational Officer, Kannur, to verify and pass appropriate orders.

¶97

17. As stated above, by Ext.P32, the order approving the petitioner as Manager was reversed in the revision f i led by Sri. P.K. Ramdas and others. The primary reason for reversing was that the election claimed by the sixth respondent Ramdas was conducted between 15/10/2015 and 12/07/2022, the date of Ext.P1 (same as Ext P31) in W.P.(C) No.4147/2023 and since the same

¶98

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶99

¶100

was conducted when there was a bye-law (which was later set aside) was in force, the election conducted on 26/09/2021 by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.35765/2022 cannot be accepted. It was also found that the election so conducted was not transparent and that there was no approved bye-law for the School. For these reasons, the approval of the petitioner as Manager was set aside and the AEO, Thalasserry was given the charge of the Manager till the election of a Manager and approval of the bye-law.

¶101

18. The said reasons In Ext P32 are wrong as the appointment of the petitioner as Manager was approved and the reason for interfering with the same by Ext.P32 cannot stand the scrutiny of law for more reasons than one. An election was conducted based on a new bye-law, which was set aside by the educational authorities on 12/07/2022 and therefore such an election could not have been given any credence by the educational authorities. Any action taken before the passing of Ext.P31 under the new constitution approved at the instance of P.K. Ramdas and others could not have been countenanced more so when it was set aside as per Ext.P31.

¶102

The Educational authorities cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of an election conducted by making a determination on facts as it is for a competent civil court to examine such questions. The entire reasoning in the impugned order in W.P(C) No.35765/2022 has to fall for that reason. However, this does not mean that this court is giving an imprimatur or any seal of approval for the election conducted on 26/9/2021. Accordingly, Ext.P32

¶103

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶104

¶105

in W.P(C) No.35765/2022 is set aside. It is made clear that this court has not pronounced on the legality of the election conducted by the petitioners in W.P(C) No.35765/2022 on 26/9/2021. However, the order passed by the educational authorities approving the 2nd petitioner as Manager is upheld. Till the said order is varied, modified or annulled in a proceeding known to law by a civil court, the continuance of the second petitioner based on the approval granted by the educational authorities is treated as valid.

¶106

20. For the aforesaid reasons, W.P(C) No. 4147/2023, the challenging the order dated 12.7.2022 has to fail. No reliefs can be granted in the said writ petition.

¶107

In the result, W.P(C) No. 35765/2022 is allowed and W.P(C) No.4147/2023 is dismissed.

¶108

Sd/-

¶109

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

¶110

APA/OKB

¶111

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶112

¶113

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4147/2023

¶114

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶115

`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE`	`ORD`	`ER, DATED 12.07.2022`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `EDUCATIONAL AGENC` `RULE 2 KER ON 15.1`	`THE` `Y AP` `0.20`	`CONSTITUTION OF THE` `PROVED UNDER CHAPTER 3` `15`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`A TRUE COPY O` `04.08.2015`	`F`	`THE AFFIDAVIT, DATED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`. A TRUE COPY` `ASSOCIATION, DATE` `HIGH SCHOOL SOCIET`	`O` `D 10` `Y`	`F THE MEMORANDUM OF` `.06.1955 OF THE IRITTY`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 10.06.1955`	`THE`	`RULES AND REGULATIONS,`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `GOVERNMENT, DATED`	`THE` `21.1`	`ORDER PASSED BY THE` `0.2022`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`. A TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 14.12.2014`	`THE`	`MINUTES OF THE MEETING`
`RESPOND`	`ENT EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`R5(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY THE DPI`	`THE`	`NOTICE DATED 7-2-2020`
`EXHIBIT`	`R5(B)`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY THE DPI`	`THE`	`NOTICE DATED 19-2-2020`

¶116

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶117

¶118

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35765/2022

¶119

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶120

`EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE M`	`EMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION`
	`DATED 10-6-1955,`	`WITH CERTIFICATE OF`
	`REGISTRATION DATED 1` `THE FIRST PETITIONER`	`6-6-1955 IN RESPECT OF` `SOCIETY REGISTERED WITH`
	`THE REGISTRAR OF` `REGISTRAR, (GENERAL)`	`SOCIETIES, DISTRICT` `KANNUR AT THALASSERY`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 10-6-1955,` `REGISTRATION DATED 1` `THE FIRST PETITIONER` `THE REGISTRAR OF` `REGISTRAR, (GENERAL)`	`RULES AND REGULATIONS` `WITH CERTIFICATE OF` `6-6-1955 IN RESPECT OF` `SOCIETY REGISTERED WITH` `SOCIETIES, DISTRICT` `KANNUR AT THALASSERY`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF T` `DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC` `DIS 3912/56 DATED` `TYPED COPY)`	`HE PROCEEDINGS OF THE` `INSTRUCTION, MADRAS IN` `4-6-1956 (ALONG WITH A`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE`	`COMMON JUDGEMENT DATED`
	`31-1-2011 IN O.S`	`NO.432/1990 AND O.S`
	`NO.150/1992 ON THE` `COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA`	`FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE E` `6-2011 ISSUED BY T` `OFFICER, THALASSERY`	`LECTION NOTICE DATED 25-` `HE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `2015 SUBMITTED BY 6T` `OF THE SCHOOL`	`APPLICATION DATED 15-7-` `H RESPONDENT AS MANAGER`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT`	`LETTER DATED 22-7-2015` `RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `SWORN IN BY THE 6`	`AFFIDAVIT DATED 4-8-2015` `TH RESPONDENT BEFORE A`

¶121

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶122

¶123

	`NOTARY` `RESPOND`	`PUBLIC AND FILED BEFORE THE 3RD` `ENT`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`A TRUE` `HIGH SC` `6TH RES`	`COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRITTY` `HOOL DATED 20-9-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE` `PONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`A TRUE` `K.DIS.` `RESPOND`	`COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/12264/15/` `DATED 15-10-2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD` `ENT`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`A TRUE` `IN WP(C` `KERALA`	`COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 13-7-2017` `)NO. 22494 OF 2017 OF HIGH COURT OF`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`A TRUE` `R.P. NO`	`COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6-2-2019 IN` `. 892 OF 2017`
`EXHIBIT P13`	`A TRUE` `18-10-2` `WP(C)NO`	`COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGEMENT DATED` `019 IN W.A NO.1534 OF 2019 AND THE` `. 22494 OF 2017`
`EXHIBIT P14`	`A TRUE` `2019` `KUTHUPA`	`COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.205 OF` `BEFORE` `THE` `MUNSIFF'S` `COURT,` `RAMBA`
`EXHIBIT P15`	`A TRUE` `I.A NO.` `BEFORE`	`COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-6-2019 IN` `1069 OF 2019 IN O.S NO.205 OF 2019` `THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA`
`EXHIBIT P16`	`A TRUE` `NO.205` `KUTHUPA`	`COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S` `OF 2019 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,` `RAMBA`
`EXHIBIT P17`	`A TRUE` `8247/20` `THE A` `(GENERA`	`COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E.M(4)/` `19/DGE/KDIS DATED 25-5-2020 ISSUED BY` `DDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION` `L), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`
`EXHIBIT P18`	`A TRUE` `ISSUED`	`COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14-9-2021` `BY THE SECOND PETITIONER AND`
	`SRI.K.T` `SOCIETY`	`.JAYAPRAKASH TO THE MEMBERS OF THE`

¶124

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶125

¶126

`EXHIBIT P18(A)`	`A TRUE`	`COPY OF T`	`HE LIST OF EXISTING MEMBERS`
	`AS ON`	`THAT DAT`	`E WITH POSTAL RECEIPTS IN`
	`RESPECT` `MEMBERS`	`OF NOT`	`ICES ISSUED TO THE SAID`
`EXHIBIT P19`	`A TRUE` `BODY ME` `9-2021`	`COPY OF` `ETING OF`	`THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL` `THE SOCIETY CONVENED ON 26-`
`EXHIBIT P20`	`A TRUE` `REGISTER` `SOCIETY` `(GENERAL` `13-10-20`	`COPY OF` `IN RESP` `WITH` `) KANNUR` `21`	`THE EXTRACT OF THE FILING` `ECT OF THE FIRST PETITIONER` `THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,` `AT THALASSERY EFFECTED ON`
`EXHIBIT P21`	`A TRUE` `2021,` `SOCIETY`	`COPY OF` `SUBMITTED` `BEFORE TH`	`THE APPLICATION DATED 29-9-` `BY THE FIRST PETITIONER` `E 4TH RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P22`	`A TRUE` `ISSUED` `PETITION`	`COPY OF` `BY THE 4` `ER SOCIET`	`THE REPLY DATED 7-12-2021,` `TH RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST` `Y`
`EXHIBIT P23`	`A TRUE` `SUBMITTE` `SECOND R`	`COPY OF` `D BY THE` `ESPONDENT`	`THE APPEAL DATED 27-3-2022` `FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE`
`EXHIBIT P24`	`A` `T` `NO.EM4/5` `BY THE S`	`RUE` `CO` `737/2022/` `ECOND RES`	`PY` `OF` `THE` `ORDER` `DGE DATED 22-4-2022 ISSUED` `PONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P25`	`A TRUE` `ISSUED B`	`COPY OF` `Y THE 4TH`	`THE ORDER DATED 7-5-2022` `RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P26`	`A TRUE` `PURPORTE` `SOCIETY`	`COPY` `DLY ISSU` `UNDER ORD`	`OF NOTICE DATED 6-4-2022` `ED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE` `ERS`
`EXHIBIT P27`	`A TRUE` `FIRST P`	`COPY OF` `ETITIONER`	`THE PETITION FILED BY THE` `ON 13-6-2022 BEFORE THE`
	`REGISTRA`	`R OF SO`	`CIETIES, DISTRICT REGISTRAR`
	`(GENERAL`	`), KANNUR`	`AT THALASSERY`

¶127

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶128

¶129

EXHIBIT 27(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KANNUR AT
THALASSERY
EXHIBIT P28A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION
PETITION DATED 18-5-2022 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS NO.5 AND 6 (EXCLUDING THE
EXHIBITS) BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P29A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTES DATED 27-6-
2022 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER
(WITHOUT EXHIBITS) BEFORE THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P29(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTES DATED 11-7-
2022 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) SUBMITTED BY THE
SECOND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P30ATRUECOPYOFTHEORDERIN
NO.EM4/8247/2019/DGE DATED 25-6-2022 ISSUED
BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P31A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/5300/2022/DEE
KNR DATED 12-7-2022, ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R6(C)A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT, DATED
18.10.2019 IN WA 1534 OF 2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P32A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO. 6067/2022/GEDN
DATED 21-10-2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R6(D)A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION, DATED
20.05.2019 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
EXHIBIT R6(E)A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY, DATED 09.03.2020

¶130

W.P(C) Nos.35765/22 & 4147/23

¶131

¶132

	`SUBMITT` `ADDITIO` `(GENERA`	`ED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE` `NAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION` `L)`
`EXHIBIT R6(F)`	`A TRUE` `ISSUED` `EDUCATI`	`COPY OF THE ORDER, DATED 25.05.2020` `BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF` `ON`
`EXHIBIT R6(G)`	`A TRUE` `2020, D`	`COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 955 OF` `ATED 28.07.2020 I`
`EXHIBIT R6(A)`	`A TRUE`	`COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE`
	`EDUCATI`	`ONAL AGENCY APPROVED BY THE DEPUTY`
	`DIRECTO` `15.10.2`	`R OF EDUCATION BY ORDER DATED` `015`
`EXHIBIT R6(H)`	`A TRUE` `BEFORE`	`COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 205 OF 2019` `THE MUNISSIF'S COURT, KOOTHUPARAMBA`
`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT R6(I)`	`A TRUE` `BEFORE`	`COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 229 OF 2017` `THE MUNISSIF'S COURT, KOOTHUPARAMBA`
`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT R6(J)`	`A TRUE` `BY THE`	`COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.07.2022 PASSED` `DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR`
`EXHIBIT R6(K)`	`A TRUE` `23.07.2` `5 AND 6`	`COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE, DATED` `022 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.` `BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT`
`EXHIBIT R6(B)`	`A TRUE`	`COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL OF THE`
	`6TH RES`	`PONDENT AS MANAGER, DATED 05.12.2017`

P.K.Ramdas v. the Deputy Director of Education – Kannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Ramdas v. the Deputy Director of Education – Kannur

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

Unnikrishnan T.S. Vs State of Kerala

Vimal Mavar, Vs Varapuzha Grama Panchayat

Tilly B. George, Vs the Municipality of Adoor

Dr. T. Muhammedali Vs Dr. M. K. Jayaraj

Prof. Dr. N. Prasantha Kumar Vs Dr. M. v. Narayanan

Abdul Niyas, Vs the District Collector