Management liability arises from current statutory provisions, not past actions of prior managers.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Manu Govind, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Shylaja.S.L, the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court pointing out that he became the Manager of an educational institution during the year 2016 pursuant to Ext.P4(b). He points out that, in spite of the petitioner taking over charge of the school concerned in the year 2016, proceedings have been taken against him with reference to an allegation of bogus admissions detected by the ‘super check inspection cell’ on 28.09.2010.

3. The petitioner’s specific contention is to the effect that:

(i) If at all there is any liability, it is the previous Manager who should be held responsible, as admitted in Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.01.2024, with reference to one Smt.Jayalakshmi, who is impleaded as the 4^th respondent in this writ petition.

(ii) The liability, if at all attracted as against a Manager, can arise only after the amendment to the provisions of Rule 17 of Chapter XXIII of the KER , which has only prospective operation from 18.04.2022.

4. I have considered the submissions made as above.

5. As rightly contented by Sri. Manu Govind, the fact that the school was being managed and owned by the 4^th respondent herein during the year 2010 has been categorically recorded in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit. That being so, how the petitioner, who became the Manager in the year 2016, could be proceeded against is not made clear. Apart from this, the provisions of the KER would permit initiation of proceedings against the Manager with reference to the discrepancies found out by the ‘super check inspection cell’ only from the year 2022 onwards.

6. Admittedly, the proceedings have been taken against the petitioner with reference to the details allegedly unearthed during the year 2010. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot be held responsible.

6. Therefore, the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P6 proceedings dated 10.03.2023 and the revenue recovery notice at Ext.P7 dated 14.08.2023, cannot be sustained.

7. While arriving at this conclusion, this Court also places reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in vijeesh C.V. v. State of Kerala [ 2014 (4) KHC 716 ]

Therefore, this writ petition stands allowed, setting aside Exts.P6 and P7 series.

Sd/-