The court affirmed the necessity for regulatory approval in educational management transfers, emphasizing adherence to procedures set forth in relevant educational statutes.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. These appeals are filed under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, by the respective petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.33822 of 2023 and 30218 of 2024, challenging the common judgment dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions ended in dismissal. For convenience of reference, the parties to these writ appeals and the documents produced are referred to in this judgment as they were referred to in the impugned common judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as in W.A.No.593 of 2025, unless otherwise stated.

2. According to the appellant in Writ Appeal No.592 of 2025, he is one among the founder Trustees of the Shihab Thangal Educational and Charitable Trust (‘the Trust’ in short), which is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30218 of 2024. The trust was formed with an objective to establish educational institutions and to provide educational facilities to the poor children in backward areas. Ext.P1 is the Trust Deed registered as Document No.788 of 2011 before the Additional SRO, Kozhikode. The Trust purchased the A.M.U.P. School at Mampad, which is an aided School under the ownership and management of one Smt.Aminakkutty. From 20.04.2013 onwards, the School has been under the ownership, possession and control of the Trust. Though the appellant, who was appointed as the Manager as per Ext.P1 Trust Deed, should have been allowed to function as the Manager of the School, the former Manager of the School Smt.Aminakkutty was allowed to continue as the Manager without any right of ownership of the properties. This arrangement was made because the transfer of management from Smt.Aminakkutty to the Trust did not have the necessary approval of the educational authorities as required under the Rules.

2.1. Smt.Aminakkutty appointed the 5^th respondent Sri.K.Muhammed Ali, as the Manager of the School without any rights over its properties. By virtue of Ext.P2 order dated 13.08.2018, the appointment of the 5^th respondent was approved by the 4^th respondent Assistant Educational Officer, Nilambur. Against Ext.P2 order, the appellant filed an appeal before the District Educational Officer. That appeal was dismissed as per the order dated 21.12.2020 of the District Educational Officer. The appellant then took up the matter before the Government by filing Ext.P3 revision dated 10.03.2021. During the pendency of Ext.P3, the 2^nd respondent Director of General Education, by his order dated 10.05.2019, declined the application for transfer of the School in favour of the Trust on the ground that there were no approved Bye-Laws for the management of the School. The 5^th respondent, without any authority, thereafter prepared a Bye-Law and got it approved by the 3^rd respondent Deputy Director of Education, as per Ext.P4 order dated 07.08.2019. Ext.P4 order was also challenged by the appellant before the Government.

2.2. Since the appellant questioned these unauthorised acts of the 5^th respondent, the appellant was removed from the Trust without any notice and without assigning any valid reason. The appellant then filed O.S.No.2 of 2022 before the Sub Court, Manjeri, challenging the above decision of the Trust to expel him, and the same is still pending. The application of the 5^th respondent for transfer of management was rejected by the 2^nd respondent the Director of General Education, by Ext.P5 order dated 26.02.2021, stating that the transfer of the Sch