Management disputes in educational institutions require judicial oversight to ensure proper protocols are followed in disciplinary actions and managerial appointments under the Kerala Education Rules.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.28535 of 2025, challenging the interim orders dated 01.08.2025 and 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The 1^st respondent herein has filed W.P.(C) No.28535 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P24 order issued by the 4^th respondent.

ii. Issue a writ directing the 2^nd respondent to take further action pursuant to Exts.P23 and P27 proceedings extending the period of suspension and to appoint an enquiry officer.

iii. Issue a writ declaring that Ext.P24 order is an abuse of the power by the 4^th respondent and is expressly contrary to the provisions of the KER and the directions issued by this Court.

iv. Issue a writ declaring that all the proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the 3^rd respondent is valid as per KER and the 2^nd respondent is duty bound to initiate further enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the KER.

v. Issue writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to initiate appropriate actions against the 4^th respondent for abusive of power and deliberate disobedience to the directions of this Court.

vi. To declare that Ext.P23 suspension order issued by the petitioner is through lawful authority and that the petitioner is entitled to continue with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 3^rd respondent.

vii. To declare the 4^th respondent has acted in excess of jurisdiction and in malice that, Ext.P24 order is in violation of provisions of the Kerala Education Rules.”

3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial High School, Poozhanad, Thiruvananthapuram, is owned and managed by a Trust having three managing trustees by name N. Surendran, N. Suseelan and N. Subhashithan. There was management dispute between N. Surendran and his brother N. Suseelan. Initially, Shri. Suseelan was the Manager of the school. According to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28535 of 2025, i.e., N. Surendran, Shri. Suseelan indulged in certain acts of corruption degrading the reputation of the school and the managing trustees decided to remove Shri. Suseelan as the Manager of the school and appointed Shri. N. Surendran as Manager on 02.08.2007 and the same was approved by the District Educational Officer on 30.12.2009. The order was subject to challenge before the Educational Authorities and by Ext.P2 order dated 17.01.2015 issued by the District Educational Officer, Shri.N. Surendran was permitted to continue as the Manager by upholding the decision of the Trust. Ext.P2 order was challenged by Shri. N. Suseelan before the Director of General Education and by the order dated 30.06.2015, the Director of General Education held that Shri. Suseelan would continue as the Manager with effect from 02.08.2007. That order was challenged by Shri. N. Surendran before the Government by filing a revision petition and that revision was allowed by the Government on 02.02.2016 by Ext.P3 order setting aside the order of the Director of General Education. Ext.P3 order passed by the Government was challenged by Shri. Suseelan before this Court in W.P.(C)No.14607 of 2016. By Ext.P4 judgment dated 04.07.2017, this Court directed the Government to reconsider the revision and to take decision within a period of two months. In that judgment it was clarified that “till such time, the parties shall maintain status quo. Approvals and appointments, if any, made in the meanwhile, shall be subject to the result of the decision taken by t