The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural mandates and relaxations specified in educational regulations during management transfer requests.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 42335 OF 2023 PETITIONERS:

1 SUBHASH.S, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. SWAMINATHAN, MANAGER-DESIGNATE, SUNDARA VARRIER MEMORIAL AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, [ S.V.M.A.L.P. SCHOOL ] NAMBULLIPURA, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT 10/263, THALAPPOTTA HOUSE, KOOTTUPATHA, MUNDUR (PO),PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 592

2 SURESH BABU, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O SWAMINATHAN, 10/263, THALAPPOTTA HOUSE, KOOTTUPATHA, MUNDUR (P.O.), PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 592 BY ADV SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN SMT. NAMITHA RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DPI OFFICE, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHHAPURAM, PIN – 695 014

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001

4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD, PIN –

678 001

5 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER [A.E.O.], PARLI, EDATHARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 611

6 P.V. DEVI, MANAGER, SUNDARA VARRIER MEMORIAL AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAMBULLIPURA, PALAKKAD-RESIDING AT ASHIRWAD, NANJAPPA NAGAR, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 002 BY ADVS.

SHRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The 1^st petitioner had obtained prior permission from the 2^nd respondent herein for the transfer of the school managed by the 6^th respondent in his name. However, subsequently, for the reasons stated in the writ petition, the 1^st petitioner sought the involvement of the 2^nd petitioner herein, who is none other than his brother, for the purchase of the school as stated above. However, the request for transfer of the school originally managed by the 6^th respondent in the name of the 1^st petitioner was not favourably considered on the alleged violation of the provisions under Rule 5A of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules. The order issued to that effect, at Ext. P9, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. I have heard Smt.Namitha, representing Sri.U Balagangadharan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader, as well as Sri.Anilkumar, the learned counsel for the 6^th respondent.

3. True, the provisions of Rule 5A of Chapter III of KER provides that in a situation where an educational institution is being owned and managed by two or more persons, the management amounts to a corporate nature and the bylaw/constitution as prescribed thereunder should be followed. At the same time, the petitioners relied on Ext.P4 joint declaration, as per which the 2^nd petitioner has expressed no objection for the school being managed by the 1^st petitioner herein. The Circular at Ext.P6 dated 24.11.2021 has also provided for a relaxation as regards the transfers effected without granting sanction.

4. In the case at hand, the impugned order at Ext.P9 has been issued without taking note of the relaxation extended by the Circular at Ext.P6. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be reconsidered especially on the face of the joint declaration at Ext.P4. 5. Therefore, this writ petition would stand disposed of, setting aside Ext.P9 and directing the 2^nd respondent herein to consider the matter afresh and pass orders thereon, after granting an opportunity for being heard to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

6. This Court further notices that on the basis of the directions issued on 01.07.2024, the 5^th respondent was directed to provisionally approve the 1^st petitioner herein as the manager of the school. In the light of the afore, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the online facilities are not extended to the 1^st petitioner for the operat