Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 81901
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.TH, J
ARAVINDAKSHAN V. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 19491 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 19538 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SASI M.R., N.P.SILPA, KAVYA KRISHNAN, S.SAJIT, SANAL ARYA, VALSAN DHARMYA, M.S
For the Respondents: T.C.SURESH MENON, B.DEEPAK, NIKITHA K.V., SMT.NISHA BOSE - SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Appointment of school managers in Kerala requires adherence to statutory provisions and formal bylaws; majority support alone cannot replace compliance with legal requirements.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Education Act, Chapter III Rules 2 and 3 - Management dispute concerning Kallyani Vilasam Aided Lower Primary School - Court finds that bylaws are essential for appointment of the school manager and majoritarian support does not override statutory requirements - Approval of manager's appointment must align with rules approved by the Director. (Paras 10, 12, and 13)
(B) Due process in Educational Management - A definite procedure for the appointment of managers and changes therein must be established per statutory provisions; mere consensus or majority support cannot dictate managerial appointments without legal backing. (Paras 10, 11, 12, and 13)
Facts of the case:
The case involves a dispute over the management of Kallyani Vilasam Aided Lower Primary School after the death of its founder. The legitimacy of the current manager's appointment and the process followed for management changes were contested based on majority support from the educational agency members.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the previous order denying change of management until the educational agency frames and approves required bylaws, confirming the existing manager's position.
Issues: Whether the support of the majority of educational agency members for a manager's appointment is sufficient without approved bylaws, and whether the current manager's appointment can be altered solely based on majority consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that, under Kerala Education Rules, formal bylaws are mandatory for managerial appointments, meaning individual or majority preferences cannot suffice without legal structure supporting the change.
Result: Writ petitions are dismissed with direction to frame necessary bylaws.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. management dispute over school appointment (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal challenge to management appointments (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. statutory requirements for manager appointment (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. manager's tenure is not automatically limited (Para 13) |
| 5. court upholds prior management order without interference (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.19491/2024, 19538/2024]
These writ petitions arise from a management dispute regarding Kallyani Vilasam Aided Lower Primary School, Muthukurusi, Mannarkkad. The School was founded by Smt.Meenakshi Amma, who continued as the Manager until her death on 27.02.2003.
2. After her death, the School was inherited by nine children of the said Meenakshi Amma and based on a consensus between the legal heirs of Meenakshi Amma, Sri. Vijayakumaran, the 5th respondent in W.P(C)No.19538 of 2024, was appointed as the Manager. Ext.P1 is the approval of the said appointment dated 19.09.2003, which was granted temporarily. Thereafter, some of the children of Meenakshi Amma died, and the other legal heirs inherited the rights. As of now, there are fourteen persons in the corporate educational agency who are the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19538 of 2024 and the respondents 5 to 17 therein.
3. Later, the petitioner in W.P(C).No.19538 of 2024, as per Ext.P2 in the said writ petition, convened a meeting of all members of the educational agency on 17.03.2024. In the said meeting, a decision was taken by the members of the Management Committee to select the petitioner in W.P(C)No.19538 of 2024 as the Manager. Eleven of the twelve persons who participated in the meeting supported the petitioner in W.P(C) No.19538 of 2024. Based on the said decision, Ext.P3 request was submitted before the AEO, by the petitioner in W.P(C)No.19538 of 2024 for change of manager. As there was delay in considering the same, the petitioner in W.P(C) No.19538 of 2024 approached this Court by filing W.P.C.No.14320 of 2024, which was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment. As per the same, the 4th respondent was directed to consider Ext.P3 and the request made therein for change of Management after hearing the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 17.
4. In compliance with the said judgment, the 4th respondent conducted a hearing, in which all the parties except the petitioner in W.P(C).No.19491 of 2024 and the 5th respondent in W.P(C) No.19538 of 2024 participated. After considering the contentions raised by the parties who appeared before the 4th respondent, Ext.P7 order was passed rejecting Ext.P3 , on the reason that, despite being a corporate educational agency, as of now, there is no approved constitution or bylaw. Therefore, the directions were issued to the parties to frame a constitution/bylaw and get the approval of the same. The request for a change of management was, thus, declined. Being aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, W.P(C)No.19538 of 2024 was submitted.
5. W.P(C)No.19491 of 2024 was submitted by one of the members of the educational agency who is respondent No.6 in W.P(C)No.19538 of 2024, wherein, the prayer sought by the petitioner therein is against the proposal of appointment of the petitioner in W.P(C).No.19538 of 2024 as the Manager and the implementation of Ext.P3 . It is also the case of the petitioner in W.P(C).No.19491 of 2024 that Ext.P7 order was also issued without notice to him.
6. The 5th respondent in W.P(C)No.19538 of 2024, who is the present approved manager of the School, submitted a detailed counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition and opposing the prayers sought therein. One of the crucial averments made by the 5th respondent is to the e that even though the appointment of the 5th respondent as Manager as per Ext.P1 was temporary in nature, later, the same was regularized as per Ext.R5(c), by making the said appointment as a permanent one. Therefore, it was contended that he has every right to continue as the Manager.
7. A reply affidavit has also been submitted by the petit
