K.RAMESAN Vs. K.ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been filed by respondents 5 to 8 in W.P.(C)No.13858/2020. The writ petition was filed by the 1 st respondent herein inter alia seeking for a direction to the Director of General Education to consider Ext.P1 representation within a time frame. He had also sought for a declaration that respondents 5 to 8 are ineligible and disentitled to be appointed as the Manager of Ramavilasom Higher Secondary School, Chokli, Kannur. The 1 st respondent claimed to be one of the persons interested in the management of the said school. When the matter came up for admission, without notice to the party respondent, the learned single Judge disposed of the matter directing the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 representation within a prescribed time, after hearing the party respondents.

(2.) The party respondents have now preferred this appeal inter alia contending that one C.K. Balan was the Manager of the School and he owned properties as well. On his death, he executed a Will by virtue of which his wife late K.P. Sarojini became the Manager. She died on 3.7.2020. As per the Will executed by Sri. C.K. Balan (Annexure-A2), after the death of Smt. K.P. Sarojini, the management shall stand vested with the appellants on rotation basis, where each one of the appellants will function as the Manager for a period of one year. According to the appellants, when application has been submitted to the concerned Educational Officer for appointment of one of them as Manager, the 1 st respondent has preferred a writ petition as stated above. According to the appellants, the 1st respondent has no semblance of right in respect of either the School property or the management of the School. It is also stated that the 1 st respondent's mother, who had right in respect of the School property, had assigned her rights in favour of the appellants as per Annexure-VIII. Therefore, it is their contention that the writ petition had been filed with malafide intention and to unnecessarily interfere with the management of the School.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, who submits that the allegation of assignment of the property cannot be accepted and that the 1st respondent is also interested in the management of the School.