GANAPATHY NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Ganapathy Nair, was once the Headmaster of the R.M.L.P. School, Veloor, a staff managed school. The school was started in the year 1115 M.E. as a staff managed school. On 1st June 1959 when the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 came into force, one P. N. S. Nambiyar was the Headmaster and in that capacity the Manager of the school. As per Ext. P1 the petitioner became the Headmaster and Manager of the school. By Ext. P2, the Regional Deputy Director, Ernakulam insisted that Aided Schools run by corporate educational agencies, including staff managed schools, should have the constitution of management approved by the department. The petitioner retired from service on 1st April 1964. Thereafter, one Sankaran Nambiyar was functioning as Headmaster and Manager. On the retirement of the said Nambiyar the 4th respondent became the Headmaster and in that capacity began to function as Manager of the school also.

(2.) The petitioner made Ext. P3 representation to the R.D.D., Ernakulam on 10th April 1964 contending that he continued to be a member of the Managing Committee of the school even after his retirement. Thereafter, on 26th February 1965 he sent Ext. P3 (a) to the Assistant Educational Officer, Kunnamkulam to issue orders to the 4th respondent to convene a meeting of the members of the Managing Committee. On 21st March 1979 the 3rd respondent District Educational Officer informed the petitioner by Ext. P5 that the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Managing Committee of the school on his retirement and no further correspondence in the matter will be entertained. On 16th May 1969 the petitioner submitted Ext. P7 representation to the 2nd respondent Director of Public Instruction. The 2nd respondent did not take any action on Ext. P7. It was under the above circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court with this original petition to quash Ext, P5 communication of the 3rd respondent District Educational Officer. Some other reliefs are also sought in the original petition,

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent State. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that after his retirement the petitioner has no right to interfere with the management of the school as the school in question is a staff managed school. It is pointed oat in para 4 that as per Order R. Dis. 15038/50, dated 29th September 1950 the 2nd respondent Director of Public Instruction has approved the staff management rules of the school.