Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
LAKSHMIKUMARI, KAMALAM, RATHILAL K.S – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 30582 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ASOK KUMAR K.P., ABDUL HAMEED RAFI, RAKESH S MENON
For the Respondents: RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE
Transfer of school management without rightful authority raises significant legal concerns requiring governmental inquiry and resolution.
Headnote:(A) Education Law - Transfer of School Management - Validity of transfer executed without title - Petitioners challenge approval of school transfer to corporate agency, asserting unauthorized transfer and financial impropriety - Respondent government ordered to consider petitioners' representation and address grievances in six months. (Paras 1-6) (
Facts of the case:
) Petitioners argue that the 6th respondent illegally facilitated the transfer of school management and misappropriated funds. The 6th respondent executed agreements favoring the 7th respondent post-retirement. (
Findings of Court:
) The government must examine the petitioners' representation and issue orders after hearing all parties. (
Issues:) Whether the transfer of management was legitimate and proper, and the eligibility of the 6th respondent to conduct the transfer. (
Ratio Decidendi:) The court recognized the need for authority and ownership in executing such transfers, ensuring due process in hearing affected parties goes forward. (
Result:) Petitioners' grievances directed for appropriate governmental resolution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transfer of school management raised legal questions about authority and financial dealings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners challenged the legitimacy of the transfer to the corporate agency. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. government directed to investigate the grievance and take action. (Para 5 , 6) |
J U D G M E N T
The assets and management of a Staff Management School was transferred at the instance of the 6th respondent to the 7th respondent. The said transfer is seen approved as per Ext.P1.
2. Petitioners submit that they are retired teachers and the 6th respondent is also a retired teacher. It is the 6th respondent who facilitated transfer of School to the 7th respondent-Corporate Agency. According to the petitioners, huge amounts have been received by the 6th respondent in the sale, when the 6th respondent had no title over the property or claim over the Management of the School. The petitioners therefore challenges Ext.P1.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 5. In the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition, notice to respondents 6 and 7 is dispensed with.
4. Government Pleader would submit that even before the retirement of the 6th respondent, while the 6th respondent was functioning as the Manager, an agreement was executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the 7th respondent and it is in the such circumstances that Ext.P1 was issued.
5. I find that the Deputy Director of Education has issued Ext.P7 communication based on the complaint filed by the 3rd petitioner. It is evident from Ext.P9 order that the matter is being enquired into.
6. At the same time, I find that the petitioners have raised grievance before the Secretary to the Government as per Ext.P8 representation. Taking note of the statements made in Ext.P7 communication of the Deputy Director of Education, I am of the view that the 1st respondent can consider Ext.P8 representation and take appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioners and other affected parties, if any.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent or any other Secretary / Officer competent to decide the matter and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 representation, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondents 6 and 7. Orders shall be passed within a period of six months. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the rival claims.
