IMPORTANT POINT
Disputes regarding the management of an aided school must be resolved in civil court, and the validity of bye-laws for appointment of a manager based on majority decision is upheld.

JUDGMENT :

[WP (C) Nos. 7202/2022, 7684/2022, 26364/2021]

1. All these writ petitions are filed by the petitioners raising a dispute with regard to the management of an Aided school namely, “I.T.K. Higher Secondary School” at Cherukulamba, Malappuram District. The petitioners are the legal heirs of erstwhile manager. (For convenience, WP(C) No.7202/2022 is taken as the leading case, and the Exhibits, as well as the parties to the litigation, are hereinafter referred to as per the sequences/ranks mentioned in the said writ petition, unless otherwise specifically mentioned).

2. The facts that led to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:

The school referred to above was established by late Sri K.V.K. Pookoya Thangal. He was the Manager and the school was thus under an individual education agency. The said Pookoya Thangal died on 23.4.2014. The petitioner in WP(C) No.7202/2022 is the son of the deceased and the petitioner in WP(C)No.26364/2021 and WP(C)No.7684/2022 is another son. Other legal heirs of the deceased are, the 5^th respondent, the wife of the deceased and respondents 7 to 10, the daughters of the deceased. The 6^th respondent in WP(C)No.7202/2022 is the petitioner in the other writ petitions.

3. After the death of the said Pookoya, a joint application was submitted by all the legal heirs of the deceased, to appoint the 5^th respondent as the Manager temporarily, for a period of one year. Accordingly, as per Ext.P2, the 5^th respondent was appointed as Manager till 22.04.2016. In the meantime, there occurred certain disputes between the legal heirs as to the management of the school and the management was taken over by the DEO as per Ext.P3 order passed by the 2^nd respondent. In the said order, it was also directed that, the 4^th respondent shall take necessary steps to conduct the election for the Manager subject to the final outcome of certain civil suits pending between the parties. However, as the 4^th respondent could not take a decision on this issue, due to lack of consensus amongst the legal representatives of the deceased Ext.P4 order was passed by the Additional Director (General) of Education directing the 3^rd respondent to convene a meeting of the legal representatives and to elect a Manager either through consensus or through election. Accordingly, Ext.P5 order was passed by the 3^rd respondent directing the DEO to continue as the manager, since no consensus could be arrived at by the parties concerned.

4. A challenge was raised against Ext.P5 before the Additional Director and it resulted in Ext.P6 order dated 20.11.2017. During the hearing before the Additional Director, out of the 7 legal representatives of the deceased, 4 persons requested to appoint the 8^th respondent as the Manager. Even though, in Ext.P6 order the 8^th respondent was declared as elected as the Manager based on the majority decision, it was noticed by the Additional Director that, as the management of the school is vested upon more than one person, a bye-law is absolutely necessary. Therefore, the parties were directed to submit a bye-law and to get approval for the same from the 3^rd respondent. Further directions were issued to the effect that, in case such a bye-law is submitted, the 3^rd respondent shall consider the same within one month and based on the same, the 8^th respondent shall be appointed as the Manager. The appropriate orders for approving the 8^th respondent as the Manager were also directed to be issued, on approval of the bye-law.

5. As against the said order, the 6^th respondent submitted a Revision Petition before the Government which was rejected as per Ext.P7 order dated 3.5.2018. Exhibit P7 order was implemented by the 4^th respondent DEO as per Ext.P8 order dated 7.5.2018 by which the 8^th respondent was appointed as the Manager for a period of three years. In Ext.P8 order, it was noticed that, as instructed in Ext.P6, a bye-law was prepared by the parties concerned in which, out of the 7 persons, 5 persons have signe