2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56713
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. ARUN, J
KRISHNADAS.M.M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44230 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS, SMT.E.U.DHANYA, SMT.CHINJU P. JOYIES, SHRI.VINAYAK MANOHARAN
For the Respondents: SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE
The court affirmed that properly routed applications for management changes in educational institutions must be accepted by administrative officers for further processing.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for change of management of a school by the 4th respondent. The court noted that prior approval from the Director is necessary according to the Kerala Education Rules but emphasized that applications routed properly should not be rejected prematurely. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for accepting and forwarding the application for due consideration as per K.E.R.
Act Referred
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for management change by petitioner. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on necessity of prior approval under k.e.r. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court emphasizes proper routing of applications. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the 4th respondent’s refusal to accept his application for change of management of the K.E.M.A.L.P. School, Kazhani, the ownership of which was obtained by the petitioner from his father.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application is only routed through the 4th respondent and it is for the Director to take a decision whether to grant or reject the request for approval.
3. Learned Government Pleader contends that as per Chapter III Rule 5A of Kerala Education Rules (K.E.R.), change of management involving change of ownership requires prior approval from the Director. Hence, only after the petitioner obtains prior approval for change of ownership, his application for approval as Manager can be considered.
4. Considering the limited relief sought, this Court is not delving into the contentions based on the provisions of the K.E.R. There is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when an application is routed through proper channel, it should reach its destination and cannot be rejected by the officer at the entry level.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing the 4th respondent to accept Exts.P1 to P3 and forward the same to the 2nd respondent within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the 2nd respondent will be at liberty to take appropriate decision with reference to the applicable provisions in the K.E.R.