Management of aided schools requires adherence to statutory provisions regarding ownership transfer; prior approval is necessary to avoid any void transactions.

JUDGMENT :

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The Lower Primary School Pazhedam, Manjeri, Malappuram District, is an aided school. One Sri. T.P. Muhammed Haji was the owner and manager of the school. After his demise, his son, T.P. Abdul Salam, was acting as the manager. He is also one of the legal heirs of the late. T.P. Muhammed Haji. The legal heirs of T.P. Muhammed Haji subsequently transferred ownership to one Aranhikkal Abdul Salam. There was a dispute regarding omission of a certain parcel of land, which forms part of the school property, in the document. Anyway, we are not adverting to that matter now, as the issue before us requires consideration from a different perspective. The Aranhikkal Abdul Salam sold his right over the property to N. Sidrathul Munthaha, who is the Part-Time Arabic Teacher of the above school. Thereafter, N. Sidrathul Munthaha approached the Government for approval as the manager. There is a legal embargo on a teacher of a school becoming its manager. The Government exempted her from the bar applicable to the teachers acquiring the management right of the school by an Order dated 03.12.2012.

2. Thereafter, N. Sidrathul Munthaha requested the transfer of management involving ownership, invoking Rule 5A of Chapter III of the KERALA EDUCATION RULES (For short, “KER”). This has been approved by the Director of Public Instructions as per the proceedings dated 07.03.2014. The teachers of the school have approached this Court challenging the exemption granted to N. Sidrathul Munthaha and the proceedings approving the change of management, invoking Rule 5A of Chapter III of the KER, in W.P.(C) No.8393 of 2014.

3. It appears that pending the challenge or before the challenge, N. Sidrathul Munthaha proposed the appointment of C.H. Abdul Rashid, the second respondent herein, as the manager of the school. N. Sidrathul Munthaha entered appearance in the matter in W.P.(C) No.8393 of 2014 and submitted that the challenge made by the teachers had become infructuous since she had proposed the appointment of C.H. Abdul Rashid, and therefore, the matter be considered as per the law and fresh orders be passed in the matter. The submission that the challenge in regard to the approval granted to N. Sidrathul Munthaha had become infructuous would have a bearing on the outcome of this matter. Going by the nature of the submission made before this Court and taking note of the direction issued therein, we are sure that this Court intended to keep the entire issue alive and open for fresh consideration, while considering the approval of managership of C.H. Abdul Rashid, who was proposed by N. Sidrathul Munthaha. This means that the issue in regard to the approval granted to N. Sidrathul Munthaha survives for fresh consideration by the Government. This Court in W.P. (C) No.8393 of 2014 directed the Director of Public Instructions to consider the matter with respect to the appointment of C.H. Abdul Rashid as the manager. The Director of Public Instructions had considered the matter. The Director of Public Instructions, placing reliance on Rule 3(2) of Chapter III of the KER, was of the view that a manager cannot be distinct from the owner of the school, and rejected the approval. N. Sidrathul Munthaha thereafter carried the matter before the Government in revision. The Government, by a detailed order, took the view that, as per the KER, the management will have to be with the person who owns the aided school in regard to the individual ownership. It was also adverted that N. Sidrathul Munthaha owned only 22 cents of land. Many other reasons have also been assigned for rejecting the revision filed by N. Sidrathul Munthaha.

4. N. Sidrathu