SUSEELAN N. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Manager of M.G.M. High School, Poozhanad, Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram. The School is under the management of a corporate educational agency and the management is through a Trust created in terms of a registered trust deed, which is produced as Ext. P1. As per the terms of Ext. P1 trust deed, the petitioner became the Chairman of the trust and the Manager of the School, in his capacity as a Managing trustee, for a life tenure consequent to the death of his father who was the earlier Managing trustee. The appointment of the petitioner as the Manager of the School was also approved by the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 28.11.1986 and the petitioner was continuing as the Manager of the School.

(2.) In the writ petition, the petitioner is essentially aggrieved by Ext. P9 order of the 2nd respondent, Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram. By the said order, the 2nd respondent set aside Ext. P2 order of the 3rd respondent District Educational Officer and directed the appointment of the 4th respondent as Manager of the School with effect from 2.8.2007. The 4th respondent is the brother of the petitioner and also a trustee, along with the 5th respondent and the petitioner, in terms of Ext. P1 trust deed. It would appear that, pursuant to differences that arose between the petitioner and the 4th and 5th respondents, steps were taken by the 4th and 5th respondents to invoke the provisions of Clause 10 read with Clause 23 of Ext. P1 trust deed to remove the petitioner from the posts of Managing trustee and Manager of the School in question. Accordingly, the 5th respondent caused Ext. R5(a) notice to be issued to the petitioner and thereafter passed a resolution of the trust removing the petitioner from the post of Managing trustee of the trust as also Manager of the School. The petitioner disputes the fact of service of Ext. R5(a) notice to him and therefore contends that the procedure contemplated under the trust deed for removal of the Managing trustee and Manager of the School was not complied with and therefore there was no effective removal of him as a Manager of the School. This was the issue that came up to be considered by the 3rd respondent District Educational Officer when he was approached by the 4th respondent with a request for approval of the change of the personnel of the Manager of the M.G.M. High School, Thiruvananthapuram. In Ext. P2 order, the 3rd respondent District Educational Officer found that as per Clause 10 of Ext. P1 trust deed, the petitioner was to continue as Manager of the School for life. He also found that no case was made out by the 4th respondent for holding the Manager responsible for any of the incidents that had been highlighted before him and hence he proceeded to reject the proposal for change of management submitted by the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by Ext. P2 order of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent preferred Ext. P3 appeal before the 2nd respondent Director of Public Instructions. The 2nd respondent, taking note of the directions, which had by then been issued against him by this Court through its judgment dated 14.7.2009 in W.P.(C). No. 19592/2009, conducted a personal hearing on 30.9.2009 when he apparently heard representatives of the petitioner as also the 4th and 5th respondents. Ext. P9 contains the decision of the 2nd respondent and it merely states as follows:

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4th and 5th respondents, wherein, they have sought to justify the decision of the 2nd respondent against the backdrop of the facts that led to the passing of Ext. P9 order. The attempt in the counter affidavit is to establish that there was material available before the 2nd respondent to support his conclusion in Ext. P9 order. No doubt, this is disputed by the petitioner who would point out that insofar as the issue in question was of a civil nature, the authorities under the Kerala Education Act and Rules were not expected to decide the issue and there ought to have been an adjudication of the matter by the civil court before the 4th respondent applied for a change in management before the educational authorities.