Kerala High Court
St.John'S Jacobits Syrian Church vs K.P.Joy on 25 November, 2008
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34769 of 2008(L)
1. ST.JOHN'S JACOBITS SYRIAN CHURCH,
... Petitioner
2. K.I.KURIAKOSE, AGED 53 YEARS
3. P.J.JOSEPH, MANAGER
Vs
1. K.P.JOY, AGED 30, S/O.PAILY,
... Respondent
2. FR. JOY KADUKKAMMAKKAL, AGED 33 YEARS
3. THOMSON C. VARGHESE,S/O.VARGHESE
4. DISTRICT EUCATION OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :25/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C) No.34769 OF 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of November 2008
J U D G M E N T
The controversy in this writ petition is regarding the managership of St.Johns Syrian Higher Secondary School and Teachers' Training Institute (HSS & TTI), Vadakara, Koothattukulam. Apparently, two groups belonging to the 1st petitioner church are staking claims for managership and there are several litigations between the parties.
2. It would appear that on the allegation that in an election that was held on 12/10/2008, claiming that he has been appointed as the Manager, the 3rd respondent has sought approval by filing an application before the 4th respondent. Orders on the approval application have not been passed by the 4th respondent so far. In the meantime, a suit has been filed by the 1st respondent challenging the validity of the said election as O.S.No.516/2008. It is stated W.P.(C) No.34769/2008 -2- that the suit has been subsequently been transferred as per order passed by this Court in Tr.PC No.290/2008, to the First Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The petitioners submit that the case stands posted on 05/12/2008.
3. According to them, the apprehension is that before the Civil Court considers the matter, orders may be passed by the 4th respondent on the approval application submitted by the 3rd respondent for his appointment as the Manager. It is with that basic grievance, the writ petition is filed and the main reliefs sought for by the petitioners are as follows :-
"b) Declare that the appointment of the Manager of the Educational Institutions under the petitioner No.1 shall be representative of the duly elected committee in respect of petitioner No.1.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondent No.4 to take a decision regarding the appointment of Manager in respect of the petitioners' institution in tune with the orders in the relative civil suit presently numbered as O.S.516 of 2008 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha.
d) Issue an appropriate writ or order to the effect that the W.P.(C) No.34769/2008 -3- Managerial functions of the educational institutions under the petitioner No.1 shall be done by an officer from the Department of Education."
4. In my view, the writ petition is premature. As already noticed, the dispute arises mainly out of the rivalry between two groups in a church. Any appointment of a Manager made as per K.E.R. is required to be approved by the 4th respondent. The power to approve the managership is a statutory function conferred on the 4th respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Educational Rules. The 4th respondent is yet to pass any orders on the approval sought for by the 3rd respondent, and the apprehension of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent may pass an erroneous order.
5. Since the 4th respondent is yet to consider and pass orders on the approval application, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the matter in any manner. Even other wise, statute provides alternative remedies in the event the 4th respondent passes an erroneous order. W.P.(C) No.34769/2008 -4- That apart the whole dispute is pending consideration of the Civil Court, where the validity of election itself is the main issue. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 4th respondent should be directed to consider their objections also before orders are passed on the approval application made by the 3rd respondent. As already noticed, the objection is mainly regarding the invalidity of the meeting held on 12/10/2008. This Court has already held in Ext.P11 judgment between the parties, that such a dispute can not be resolved by the educational officer. In view of the said judgment, I am not inclined to pass any order as sought for by the petitioners.
6. As at present, the petitioners cannot have any grievance. Therefore, leaving open the contentions raised in the writ petition, it is closed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg