The court ruled that disputes regarding educational agency management must be resolved through civil suits, not writ petitions, affirming the validity of the Trust's management rights.

JUDGMENT :

N.NAGARESH, J.

The petitioner states that Mr. Thandaparakkal Muhammed, the father of the petitioner, founded KMHS, Karulai Aided High School in Wandoor Educational District in the year 1968. He was the individual educational agency and Manager of the School till his death on 14.02.2023. The petitioner seeks to declare that the appointment and approval of the 5^th respondent as Manager of the School is invalid and illegal. The petitioner has sought certain other consequential and incidental reliefs, including a declaration that Ext.P1 Trust Deed is void ab initio.

2. The petitioner states that a public Charitable Trust under the name “Kottarakkad Charitable Trust” was constituted by Thandaparakkal Muhammed on 05.02.2013, as per Ext.P1. However, ownership of the School and right to transfer the management of the School was not transferred to the Trust till Thandaparakkal Muhammed died.

3. The preamble of the Deed of Trust was amended by three out of four Trustees stating that it is desirous of entrusting the management of the School along with its building, accessories and assets to the Trust for the purpose of conducting the School, without involving any change of landed property and managership of the School. According to the petitioner, even after the amendment, Mr. Thandaparakkal Muhammed continued to be the Manager of the School till his death.

4. After the demise of Muhammed, the 5^th respondent was wrongly appointed as the Manager of the School. The DEO illegally approved the appointment. The Additional Director General of Education set aside the order of the DEO. In the revision filed by the 5^th respondent, the 1^st respondent-Government passed an order quashing the order passed by the 2^nd respondent and confirmed the order passed by the 4^th respondent-DEO.

5. The petitioner would contend that the Trust constituted under Ext.P1 is not an educational agency and it does not have any proprietary rights over the property and management of the School. It is alleged that the Trust Deed was approved on 03.04.2014 as the constitution of the educational agency, as per Ext.P3 order of the Deputy Director of Education. It was further alleged that Ext.P4 bye- laws of the School was approved by the DEO. Without considering the fact that there was no transfer of proprietorship of the School or management of the School, the DEO approved the appointment of the 5^th respondent as Manager as per Ext.P5 order. The Director General of Education interfered with Ext.P5 and passed Ext.P6 order. In revision, the Government passed Ext.P8 order dated 09.05.2024 upholding the decision of the DEO.

6. The petitioner contended that the right to transfer the right of management or right to conduct the School was not entrusted or transferred to the Trust. Ext.P2 amendment to the Trust Deed is illegal. The District Educational Officer does not have the authority to approve the bye-laws or rules framed under the KER. The Trust is admittedly not a corporate educational agency. Only an educational agency having proprietary right is empowered to appoint the Manager. Ext.P8 is therefore illegal and is liable to be set aside.

7. Respondents 5 to 7 resisted the writ petition. What are challenged in the writ petition are disputed questions of fact and hence a writ petition is not maintainable. If the petitioner is claiming any right under Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act, she has alternate remedy. The petitioner is one of the beneficiaries of the Trust and is one of the signatories in the minutes of the meeting of the Trust held on 25.05.2013, in which the Chairman declared that he is ready to handover the School to the Trust. The said resolution was implemented.

8. Subsequently also, the petitioner participated in the Trust meetings on 15.08.2013, 21.09.2013, 02.12.2013, etc. The petitioner continued to attend the meetings even subsequently. Thereafter, at a belated stage, on 27.03.2023 the petitioner submitted a petition before the DEO. On 11.03.2023, maj