The de facto doctrine was applied to uphold the validity of the disputed Manager's actions and appointments, emphasizing the need for public acquiescence and the summary nature of decisions by educational authorities.

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.

Four Original Petitions were disposed of by a common judgment and all these Writ Appeals arise from that common judgment. Therur U.P. School is a private aided school under the management of a society by name "Therur Educational Society". The Secretary of the Society is the Manager of the School. Election to the society was conducted in 1987 and one P.V. Govindan Nambiar claimed that he was elected as Secretary. But the appellant Padmanabhan Nambiar claimed that he was the person

really elected as the Secretary of the Society. The election of Govindan Nambiar as Secretary was intimated to the Assistant Educational Officer, Mattannur, who approved him as the Manager of the school. Padmanabhan Nambiar disputed the claim of Govindan Nambiar and filed an appeal and in the appeal it was held that the claim of the manager will finally be decided on the basis of the suit filed by Govindan Nambiar for declaration of his right as Secretary of the Society. Meanwhile Govindan Nambiar filed a suit before the Munsiffs Court, Kuthuparamba as O.S. No. 266/88 for declaration of his right as Secretary of the society and also for consequential injunction. The dispute between Govindan Nambiar and Padmanabhan Nambiar continued till O. S. No. 266/88 filed by Govindan Nambiar was dismissed on 30.11.1991. Govindan Nambiar filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Sub Court, Thalassery. After the dismissal of the suit, Padmanabhan Nambiar approached the educational authorities that he shall be approved as the Manager of the School. From 18.3.1992 onwards Padmanabhan Nambiar was approved as the Manager of the school. On 2.1.1992 Govindan Nambiar, in his capacity as Manager of the school, appointed one Usha Sree - 5th respondent in W.A. No. 255/97 as a Teacher, One Vanaja was also appointed by Govindan Nambiar on 6.1.92. The appointments of these two teachers were approved by the educational authorities. Padmanabhan Nambiar challenged the approval of the appointments of these two teachers alleging that Govindan Nambiar was incompetent to make any appointment and he was not the Manager of the school and the appointments made by such a Manager, being illegal, ought not have been approved by the educational authorities. Government ultimately held that the appointments of these two teachers were liable to be approved and the revision filed by Padmanabhan Nambiar before the Government was dismissed.

2. The two teachers appointed by Govindan Nambiar were later thrown out of service for want of vacancies and they claimed protection under R.51-A in Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules and sought appointment against future vacancies that had arisen. O.P. No. 14183 of 1995 and O.P. No. 591 of 1996 were filed by these teachers seeking directions to appoint them in the permanent vacancies. O.P. No. 17686/93 and O.P. No. 13495/94 were filed by Padmanabhan Nambiar against an order of approval passed by the Government. Learned Single Judge held that the appointments of these two teachers by Govindan Nambiar were in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules and on retrenchment they were entitled to get protection under R.5I-A of Chapter XIV-A of the KER. The Government orders approving their temporary appointments were held to be valid. These four Writ Appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the learned single judge in the Original Petitions.

3. We heard Sri. K. Ramkumar, learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel who appeared for the contesting respondents and also learned Government Pleader. The contention urged by the appellants' counsel is that Govindan Nambiar was not validly elected as Secretary of the Co-operative Society under whose management {he U.P. School is functioning and it was urged that Govindan Nambiar had no authority to act as Manager of the school and he was an usurper or intruder as the Manager and the appointments made by him were void. According to the appe