Kerala High Court
Chandrika Gopinathan vs State Of Kerala on 21 April, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY2017/30TH ASHADHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 15179 of 2015 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONERS:
--------------------
1. CHANDRIKA GOPINATHAN,
W/O.LATE V.GOPINATHAN,RESIDING AT: "KANTHIMATHI",
GANDHINAGAR,KUTHIRAKULAM(P.O),KIZHAKKUMKARA MURI,
NEDUMANGAD TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. SHYAM,
S/O.LATE V.GOPINATHAN,RESIDING
AT:"KANTHIMATHI",GANDHINAGAR,KUTHIRAKULAM(P.O),
KIZHAKKUMKARA MURI, NEDUMANGAD
TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)
SRI.K.R.GANESH
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,
TBHIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695014.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
ATTINGAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695101.
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ATTINGAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695101.
TS
WP(C).No. 15179 of 2015 (V)
---------------------------------------
6. SRI.DIVIJENDER REDDY,AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.SIVA REDDY,SOFTWARE ENGINEER,RESIDING AT
"NIMMA",STATIONGANPUR VILLAGE,WARRANGAL
DISTRICT,ANDHRAPRADESH,PIN-502279.
R1 -R 5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R.DHANIL
R6 BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
SRI.K.SIJU
SRI.B.SUGATHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21-07-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 30113/2015 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
TS
WP(C).No. 15179 of 2015 (V)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1133/2008
DATED 21.4.2008 OF KILIMANOOR S.R.O.
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY LATE
SRI.V.GOPINATHAN BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 4.7.2013 ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT OF LATE SHRI.V.GOPINATHAN.
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.11.2013 IN
W.P(C)37352/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF LATE
SHRI.V.GOPINATHAN ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS &
DEATHS,GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
DATED 24.7.2014 ISSUED BY THE
TAHSILDAR,NEDUMANGAD,SHOWING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF
LATE SHRI.V.GOPINATHAN.
EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.367/2014 BEFORE THE
HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL.
EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.6.2014 IN I.A.1549/2014 IN
O.S.367/2014 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL.
EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT IN O.S.367/2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF
COURT,ATTINGAL.
EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MUTUAL WILL ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
EXECUTED BY LATE SHRI.V.GOPINATHAN AND THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
TS
WP(C).No. 15179 of 2015 (V)
---------------------------------------
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------------------
EXT.R6(A):- A PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3D
RESPONDENT.
EXT.R6(B):- THE COPY OF DETAILED EXPENDITURE STATEMENT FOR THE
YEAR 2014-15.
EXT.R6(C):- A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ABOVE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.6.2015
PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
THRIUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.R6(D):- THE PHOTOCOPY OF GO(RT)NO.690/16/G.EDN.DATED 18.2.2016.
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
TS
"CR"
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371 of 2015,
7397 & 38504 of 2016
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions have, at its core, disputes between two persons who claim entitlement to be the Manager of two schools, by name, Raja Ravi Varma Vocational Higher Secondary School for boys and Raja Ravi Varma Girls Higher Secondary School, Kilimanoor.
2. The disputation essentially is one hand between Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.7397 of 2016, 36371 of 2015, 15179 of 2015 and 30113 of 2015 and Sri.Divijender Reddy on the other, who has been arrayed as a respondent in all these cases. As regards W.P.(C)No.38504 of 2016 is concerned, it is filed by the present Headmaster of the Raja Ravi Varma Girls Higher Secondary School pleading for directions that he be approved as such by the educational Authorities.
3. Since all these cases involve similar, if not identical, circumstances and facts and since reliefs granted in one would be dependent upon the reliefs to be granted in the others, I deem it W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..2..
appropriate to consider all these writ petitions jointly and to dispose it of by this judgment.
4. I have heard Sri.K.R.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan; Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri.K.Siju, appearing for Sri.Divijender Reddy; Sri.P.J.Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38504 of 2016; Sri.S.Abhilash, learned counsel appearing for some of the other respondents in the writ petitions, who are teachers appointed in the school and the learned Government Pleader.
5. As I have stated earlier, the dissension between the parties herein is as to the management rights over two schools in question. Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan alleges that the schools originally belonged to a certain Sri.K.K.Varma, who was its individual educational agency and its approved Manager. She says that Sri.K.K.Varma, who is now no more, had, during his life time, sold the properties on which the schools are situated along with the right to run the schools to her husband Sri.Gopinathan and Sri.Divijender Reddy. The parties are ad idem that the sale was made in joint favour of Sri.Gopinathan and Sri.Divijender Reddy and they thus became the joint owners of the property. While so, it W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..3..
appears that Sri.Gopinathan died on 09.02.2014 and Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan alleges that on his death, the schools become a corporate educational agency which will have to be administered by a scheme to be proposed and approved by the competent educational Authorities, which claim was repudiated by Sri.Divijender Reddy.
6. This is the point of divergence between them, leading to skirmishes and finally to a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Attingal, at the instance of Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan, which was originally numbered as O.S.No.367 of 2014.
7. In the said suit, the pleadings would show that Sri.Divijender Reddy propounded a Will alleged to have been executed by Sri.Gopinathan, under the terms of which the entire properties on which these two schools are situated are exclusively left as legacy to Sri.Divijender Reddy. As I have already stated, Sri.Gopinathan died on 09.02.2014 and Sri.Reddy maintains that he is thus the sole owner of the properties and therefore, that he is the individual corporate agency of the schools concerned.
8. It transpires that when Sri.Gopinathan was alive an application for change of management involving change of ownership of the schools were made by him and Sri.Reddy jointly to W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..4..
the competent authority, namely, the Director of Public Instruction (for short, 'the DPI') under the provisions of Chapter III Rule 5A of the Kerala Education Rules. On the allegation that this application was not being considered by the DPI, a writ petition was filed before this Court as W.P.(C) No.37352 of 2010 which was disposed of by judgment dated 05.11.2013, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.36371 of 2015. Sri.Gopinathan died after this judgment. Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan alleges that even though this judgment was delivered as early as on 05.11.2013, no action was taken by the DPI until 30.05.2015 on which day an order was issued, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.7397 of 2016, ordering that on the death of Gopinathan, the school has become a corporate educational agency and that pending formulation of the scheme and finalisation of O.S.No.367 of 2014 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Attingal, Sri.Divijender Reddy is appointed as the "Temporary Manager" of the schools.
9. Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan, being aggrieved by this order, to the extent to which Sri.Reddy was made the Temporary Manager, approached the Government, which finally led to Ext.P14 order in W.P.(C) No.7397 of 2016, confirming the earlier order of the DPI and affirming the position of Sri.Reddy as the "Temporary W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..5..
Manager" of the schools. It is against these orders that Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan has approached this Court alleging that Sri.Reddy is incompetent to act as the Manager of the schools and that the orders impugned have been issued contrary to the scheme of authority mandated in the KER.
10. Apart from the dispute regarding the right to ownership and managership of the schools, Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan has also assailed certain appointments of teachers made by Sri.Reddy, which she alleges has been made even before he was appointed as a "Temporary Manager". She refers to the appointments of three teachers by names Sri.Vishnu.P.G., who is arrayed as the second respondent in W.P.(C) No.30113 of 2015 and as the fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.36371 of 2015; Smt.Simna.A.S., who is the third respondent in W.P.(C) No.30113 of 2015 and that of Sri.Venu G.Potti, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38504 of 2016. The case against the appointment of these teachers is underpinned on the allegation that Sri.Divijender Reddy is not competent to act as a Manager and, therefore, incompetent to make such appointments.
11. Essentially therefore, as I have already indicated above, the primary question in these cases is whether the orders of the Government appointing Sri.Divijender Reddy as the "Temporary W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..6..
Manager" is proper or otherwise. I, therefore, propose to consider this issue as a primary issue on which will hinge the resolution of the others.
12. Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Divijender Reddy relied on Dr.Philippose Mar Theophilus v. State of Kerala & others [1986 KLJ 1069] to contend that when there is a dispute regarding management, the educational authorities including the DPI would be, under the prescriptions of Chapter III Rule 5A of the KER, authorised to make such arrangements as are required and necessary to ensure that the school is run properly and that the interest of the students are not prejudiced. I have no doubt regarding the proposition contained in the judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel. I am firm in my opinion that whatever be the disputes between the persons claiming managership or ownership over the school and the properties, the paramount interest should be the welfare and the studies of the students and to ensure that it is in no manner affected or trammeled by such disputes. Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel submits that the arrangement contained in Exts.P10 and P14 orders in W.P. (C) No.7397 of 2016 is only a temporary one and that Sri.Divijender W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..7..
Reddy has not been appointed as Manager until now. He says that Sri.Reddy has been appointed only as a "Temporary Manager" until such time as the disputes between the parties are resolved in the civil suit pending before the court below.
13. Sri.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan says that the appointment of Sri.Divijender Reddy as a Manager or as a "Temporary Manager" by the DPI falls foul of the provisions of Chapter III of the KER relating to managership and change of ownership of the schools. He says that under the provisions of Chapter III Rule 4, the power to approve appointment of Managers and to approve changes in the personnel of the Managers are vested with the concerned District Educational Officers and that such orders are amenable to an appellate jurisdiction with the Director of Education. He, therefore, says that the action of the DPI, while considering the application preferred by Sri.Gopinathan and Sri.Divijender Reddy for change of management consequent to ownership under Rule 5A, in appointing Sri.Reddy as the Manager or as the "Temporary Manager" of the school is impermissible and legally unsustainable. He says that this is an usurpation of the power statutorily vested with the DEO by the DPI and that this is completely illegal and irregular. W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..8..
14. I have considered the syllogistic submissions made on behalf of the parties quite in detail. I have also considered the pleadings in extenso. On an examination of the order that is primarily impugned in these writ petitions, namely, Ext.P10 in W.P. (C) No.7397 of 2016, I see that the DPI has considered all the factors in its proper perspective and has, in fact, found that after the death of Gopinathan, the management of the schools have partaken the character of a corporate educational agency, warranting a statutory scheme to be proposed and approved. He has thereafter said that since the disputes between the parties are still alive before a court of competent jurisdiction, he would not be in a position to enter into any conclusion or decision regarding such disputes. I am certain that this view adopted by the DPI is correct and irreproachable. When the DPI could not have entered into any conclusion regarding the disputes between the parties, he could not have taken a decision as to who is the Manager or the owner of the schools. Thereupon, it became incumbent upon him to ensure that the school is running well and that the interest of the students, teachers and staff are not prejudiced on account of the disputes between the parties. It is in such circumstances that he is seen to have invoked powers under the KER to create interim arrangement W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..9..
under which Sri.Divijender Reddy would operate as a "Temporary Manager".
15. That this only an interim arrangement is certain because nowhere in the KER is there an enabling provision for the appointment of a "Temporary Manager". The KER provides only for the appointment of a Manager, who is generally to be appointed under the authority of the DEO. However, what has been done now by the DPI is not to appoint the Manager but to appoint Sri.Divijender Reddy as a "Temporary Manager". This can only be an arrangement that will subsist until such time as the suit is disposed of by the court below or until such time as orders are issued by a competent court regarding the proprietary rights of the parties on the properties concerned.
16. Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel, au contraire, refers to Chapter III Rule 5 and particularly to the Note under it to contend that the provisions of Rules 4 and 5 of the said Chapter would not apply to change of management involving change of ownership. He submits vehemently that only the provisions of Rule 5A would apply and, therefore, that the DPI is authorised to make arrangements for the management of the school, including interim management on account of the disputes W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..10..
between the parties herein. These submissions, though founded well on the provisions of law is, however, not applicable at this stage of the proceedings for reasons I will state presently.
17. It is beyond doubt that the provisions of Chapter III Rules 4 and 5 vests the authority, to appoint Managers of schools, on the DEO. But in the case at hand what has been done is not the appointment of the Manager but the creation of an interim arrangement by the DPI while considering an application for change of management involving change of ownership. On account of the disputes between the parties the Authorities have not been able to take a decision on the application for change of management involving change of ownership and as matters now stand, the question as to who should be the owner of the properties itself is under a cloud. It is only after this is established one way or the other can the authorities pass final orders as to the approval of the Manager. This is particularly because if Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan wins, then the school becomes a Corporate Educational Agency to be governed by a scheme; whereas if Sri.Reddy wins, then the school will continue to be an Individual Educational Agency. Obviously, therefore, until such time as it is clear as to whether the school would become a Corporate Educational Agency or would W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..11..
remain as an Individual Educational Agency, the Authorities would not be in a position to take a view regarding managership in any manner.
18. In such view of the matter, I have no doubt in my mind that the Authorites were completely justified, taking into account the overall welfare and protection of the schools in question, in appointing somebody to be in interim management of the school and in this case they have chosen Sri.Reddy, who is admittedly a co-owner, to do so with the monicker "Temporary Manager". I find no reason to interfere with these decisions as long as the authorities ensure and confirm that Sri.Reddy is able to run the school in the best interest of the students, staff and teachers.
19. Coming to the question of appointments made by Sri.Reddy, these appointments have been made in the year 2014. Sri.Vishnu has been appointed as HSST Junior in Computer Science on 20.6.2014 and Smt.Simna has been appointed as HSST in Commerce on 16.9.2014. Sri.Ganesh, learned Counsel appearing for Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan says that Sri.Reddy could not have appointed these two teachers at that time since he was appointed as a "Temporary Manager" by the DPI only as per Ext.P10 dated 30.5.2015. Sri.Ganesh says that Sri.Reddy, even under the order in W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..12..
question, cannot be deemed to be a Manager and that while acting as a "Temporary Manager" he would not be authorised to make appointments in the manner that he has done.
20. Even assuming that Sri.Ganesh is right, one thing is certain that there were vacancies in the school that required appointments to be made. Appointments of Sri.Vishnu and Smt.Simna were made against available vacancies which could not have been left vacant merely because the parties are fighting outside. It is upto the Educational Authorities to consider the validity of such appointments strictly in accordance with the provisions of the KER and conclude if they were made legally and to thereafter take a decision as to if approval can be granted to such appointments. The fact that the teachers were appointed by a person holding out to be the Manager and the fact that their appointments are challenged by Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan on the ground that Sri.Reddy was not the Manager, would not be sufficient reason for the Educational Authorities to deny approval or to grant it. The question of denial or granting of approval will have to be founded on intelligible and cogent reasons to be recorded by the Authorities and the disputes between the parties should not come in the way of the approval of the appointment of these two teachers if W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..13..
they have been otherwise validly appointed. I, therefore, deem it appropriate that the competent Educational Authorities are given the liberty to consider the approval of the appointments of these two teachers unbirdled and untrammeled by the disputes between the parties and to be decided strictly in accordance with the provisions of the KER relating to appointment and approval of teachers.
21. As regards Sri.Venu G.Potti, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38504/2016 is concerned, he was apointed as a Headmaster in Raja Ravi Varma Girls HSS with effect from 1.6.2016, when admittedly Sri.Reddy was managing the school as a 'Temporary Manager' under the impugned orders. The appointment of Sri.Venu G.Potti as the Headmaster was necessitated on account of retirement of the earlier incumbent and his appointment, as Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel would submit, was made for valid reasons and taking into account his experience, seniority and qualification. This again is a matter best left to the competent Authorities and my view as above, regarding the two teachers above referred, would, therefore, be applicable to the case of Sri.Venu G.Potti as well.
W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..14..
22. For the reasons afore, I am of the view that the orders of the DPI and the Government, namely, Exts.P10 and P14 in W.P. (C)No.7397/2016 have been issued for valid reasons and with laudable intention, even assuming that there are any technical reasons under which such actions can be challenged. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the directions contained therein should be allowed to operate to ensure that the school is managed well.
23. I understand that the main apprehension of Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan is that by the effect of these orders Sri.Reddy would become the de facto Manager even though he is appointed as a 'Temporary Manager'. I find some force in this because if Sri.Reddy is allowed to operate as a full Manager even though he is designated only as a 'Temporary Manager', prejudice may be caused to Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan if finally she is able to win the suit instituted by her against Sri.Reddy. For such reason I am of the view that it will be necessary that the activities of Sri.Reddy as a "Temporary Manager" of the school will have to be sufficiently controlled and modulated by this Court so as to ensure that he does not commit any misfeasance or force any obligation to be cast on the institutions which he ought not to have done. For such purpose I deem it appropriate that I order that Sri.Reddy will W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..15..
be reckoned and construed to be a receiver of the schools appointed under the provisions of Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that he will be obligated, by the terms of this judgment and the applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to place before the Court below in O.S.No.367/2014, which was originally pending before the Munsiff Court, Attingal and which I am told has been re-numbered as O.S.No.45/2016, consequent to it being made over to the Sub Court, Attingal, on account of an amendment made to the plaint incorporating a challenge against the will, to file quarterly statements in his position as a Receiver and submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Attingal for all requirements relating to the management of the schools and for further appointments to be made in the schools. Consequently Sri.Reddy hereinafter will discharge his duty as a 'Temporary Manager' of the school strictly as a Receiver appointed by this Court and would take all decisions and action only for the benefit of the school and for no other reason whatsoever and he will periodically inform the Court below, through the statement as ordered herein, all such action and seek approval, if required.
24. Needless to say, until such time as the civil suit is disposed of between the parties, this arrangement will continue and W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..16..
they will adhere to the decision to be taken by the Civil Court or by the Appellate Court thereafter relating to ownership of the properties and the Educational Authorities will be enjoined to pass final orders after the civil suit is finally disposed of.
25. As regards the teachers who are appointed namely Sri.Vishnu and Smt.Simna are concerned, as I have already indicated above, the Educational Authorities will be obligated to consider the approval of their appointment strictly in terms of the KER, specifically Chapter XXXII thereof.
26. The learned Counsel appearing for Sri.Vishnu at this point submits that his client's appointment has already been approved by the Government as per Ext.P9 order in W.P.(C) No.36371/2015. I see that this approval has been specifically challenged by Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan in the said Writ Petition on the ground that the Government have no power to make such approval and that the approval ought to have been considered by the competent Educational Authorities under the Act. I find sufficient force in this submission and I, therefore, set aside the order issued by the Government, namely, Ext.P9 in W.P.(C)No.36371/2015 and direct the competent Educational Authorities to re-consider the case for approval of the appointment of Sri.Vishnu strictly in terms of the W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..17..
directions contained in this judgment and expressly in accordance with the KER and Chapter XXXII thereof.
27. Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel makes a pointed submission at this stage that Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan has no locus in challenging the appointment of the teachers in the schools and he asserts that the challenge against such appointments ought not to be accepted. It may be true that Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan is not the Manager but it is admitted that her claim for being a co-owner of the property is still pending before the Civil Court. It may be true that Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan may not have a claim against the managership of the school until such time as the civil suit is disposed of. However, since she claims to be a co-owner of the property and since those issues are still alive before a court of competent civil jurisdiction, I am of the view that the challenge of Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan against the appointments can be entertained to a limited extent of ensuring that the appointments of these teachers are validly done and strictly in terms of the relevant provisions of the KER. I, therefore, make it clear that when I have directed the Authorities to consider the approval of the appointment of the teachers involved herein, they are enjoined to ensure that their approval is considered W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..18..
strictly in terms of the law without reference to the disputes between Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan and Sri.Divijender Reddy.
28. As regards the case of Sri.Venu G.Potti is concerned I allow W.P.(C)No.38504/2016 and quash Ext.P6 order under which his appointment as Headmaster was cancelled and directed to be relieved from the school to report before the parent school. I do so in view of my observations above and I direct the Educational Authorities to consider the appointment of Sri.Venu G.Potti also in terms of what I said above and strictly within the confines of the provisions of the KER and Chapter XXXII thereof.
29. Since the Civil Suit namely O.S.No.45/2016 on the files of the Sub Court, Attingal is still pending and is stated to be posted to 14.9.2017 for appearance of parties as also for production of report and records of O.S.No.367/14 earlier on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Attingal, I am not sure if the said Court would be in a position to dispose of the suit within a time frame. I, therefore, deem it appropriate that a time frame be fixed by this Court for the purpose of consideration of the approval of the appointment of teachers, namely, Sri.Vishnu, Smt.Simna and Sri.Venu G.Potti as per the above directions. I therefore direct the competent educational Authorities to consider the approval of these W.P.(C)Nos.15179, 30113 & 36371/2015, 7397 & 38504 of 2016 ..19..
appointments, as expeditiously as possible, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the said teachers, as well as to Smt.Chandrika Gopinathan and Sri.Reddy, and not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Registry of this Court is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment to the Sub Court, Attingal for being incorporated, for necessary procedure and action relating to Sri.Divijender Reddy as a Receiver, on its files in O.S.No.45/2016.
These writ petitions are thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE stu/skj