IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness and the disqualification of a school manager under the Kerala Education Act due to permanent employment elsewhere.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner and the 6^th respondent in WP(C) No.6679 of 2021 are stated to be the joint owners of a property measuring 1 acre comprised in Sy. No.705/1-2 of Pooyapally Village which houses the Mar Gregorious Memorial Lower Primary School (MGM LP School), an aided school, on the strength of a Will bearing No.46/1992 of the SRO, Oyoor and also, the judgment and decree dated 23.7.2009 in O.S.No.424/2003 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kottarakara. It is submitted that, originally, the petitioner's grandfather C.M.Geevarghese was the owner and manager of MGM LP School, who transferred the ownership and managership to his wife Aleyamma as per a gift deed bearing No.385/1969 on the file of the SRO, Pooyapally, which was duly approved by the educational authorities.

2. The petitioner contends that even before Ext.P1 decree, the 6^th respondent had submitted an application on 14.8.2003 before the 5^th respondent-Assistant Educational Officer, Veliyam, requesting a change of management of the school in question in his name, as per Ext.P2 application. The 5^th respondent had rejected the Ext.P2 application, directing the 6^th respondent to submit a fresh application before the 2^nd respondent, Director of General Education through Ext.P3 order dated 24.8.2004.

3. The 6^th respondent challenged Ext.P3 order in WP(C) No.26318/2004, which was disposed of through Ext.P4 judgment directing the 6^th respondent to avail the statutory remedies. Though W.A.No.2359/2007 was filed against the judgment, the same was dismissed as per Ext.P5 judgment. The 6^th respondent, thereafter, moved the Government which led to Ext.P6 order directing the 6^th respondent to prepare a bye law for the management of the school and to get it approved by the authorities concerned, which was also challenged by him by filing WP(C) No.19786/2009, in which this Court passed Ext.P7 judgment on 23.3.2017 directing the Deputy Director of Education to dispose of the representation preferred by the 6^th respondent with notice to all the parties.

4. The writ petitioner contends that the 3^rd respondent did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in total violation of the directions in Ext.P7 judgment and without providing a copy of the representation which was being considered, was proceeding with the matter, which made the petitioner prefer a representation dated 3.7.2017 before the 3^rd respondent, marked as Ext.P8. The 3^rd respondent, in the meantime, issued Ext.P9 communication dated 3.7.2017, enclosing a copy of the draft bye law submitted by the 6^th respondent. The petitioner again submitted a representation on 10.7.2017 requesting to provide an opportunity for hearing as directed in Ext.P7 judgment also pointing out the mistakes in the draft bye law supplied to him and prepared by the 6^th respondent.

5. The petitioner had also forwarded Ext.P10 draft bye law he prepared through the said representation. The 3^rd respondent passed orders on 18.9.2017, Ext.P11 again relegating the matter to the 5^th respondent-AEO with a direction to the parties to submit attested bye laws for approval after considering the suggestions of the writ petitioner and by attempting a conciliation. The 5^th respondent had prepared a report dated 9.11.2017 as regards the hearing conducted on 3.11.2017 and issued a copy of the same to the petitioner, marked as Ext.P12, which shows that the writ petitioner had demanded the partition of the school premises before the approval of the bye law. The writ petitioner disputes having made such a demand and submits that all he demanded was to demarcate the boundary between the MGM LP School and the St.Thomas High School, run by another agency.

6. In the meanwhile, the 6^th respondent approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.32963/2017, which was disposed of through Ext.P13 judgment on 28.11.2017, directing the Assistant Educational Officer to dispose of the representation preferred by him. The petitioner submits that no notice was issued by the