Kerala High Court
Soudath C.H vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2025
2025:KER:73281
WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32806 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 SOUDATH C.H.
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O HAMEED P.K, PANICKERKUNNAN HOUSE, THRIKKALANGODE,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, A.L.P. SCHOOL, PAZHEDAM,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, 676 101.
2 RASHIDA.K,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O ABDUL JABBAR, MANNISSERY HOUSE, AMAYOOR P.O, MANJERI,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, A.L.P. SCHOOL, PAZHEDAM,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, 676 101.
3 SWAPNA K.G,
W/O MOHANDAS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, A.L.P.
SCHOOL, PAZHEDAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, 676 101.
BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
SMT.M.VISHNUPRIYA
SMT.C.B.ABHINAVA
SRI.V.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, ANNEXURE-11,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
2025:KER:73281
WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019
2
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
TOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM -676 505.
4 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MALAPPURAM-676 505.
5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 121.
6 SMT. N.SIDRATHUL MUNTHAHA,
RESIDING AT NERRULPPAN, ALL-HILAL MANZIL,
P.O.PATHAPPARIYAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 123,
WORKING AS ARABIC TEACHER, A.L.P SCHOOL, PAZHEDAM.
7 SRI. C.H. ABDUL RASHID,
RESIDING AT CHOLASSERI HOUSE, V.I.P.COLONY, MALAPPURAM,
DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -676 519.
8 NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS,
GATE NO 4, FIRST FLOOR, JEEVAN TARA BUILDING, PARLIAMENT
STREET, PATEL CHOWK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
9 ASHRAF M.A. ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
S/O ADIMAKUTTY, RESIDING AT MANATHATTU HOUSE, MALIKAM
PEEDIKA, ANANGAD PO, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PREM
SMT.MEENA.A.
SHRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN (PALAKKAD)
SRI.H.NARAYANAN
SHRI.P.M.PAREETH
SMT.AISWARYA VENUGOPAL
SHRI.NAJEEB P.S
SHRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.09.2025, THE COURT ON 06.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:73281
WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019
3
P.M. MANOJ, J
------------------
WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019
----------------------
Dated this the 06th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is preferred by teachers of the ALPS, Pazhedom, Manjery challenging Ext.P23 order of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions on the ground that the objection filed by the petitioners for cancellation of the minority status obtained by the 6th respondent in respect of ALP School, Pazhedom, by fraud, has been disposed of in a manner vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record and is arbitrary and illegal.
2. Originally, the ALP School, Pazhedom was established by Sri.T.P.Muhammed Haji, who was its owner and manager. According to the petitioner, the school was not established with the objective of functioning as a minority institution, but to provide education facilities to the students of the Village irrespective of their religion or caste. After the death of Sri.Muhammed Haji, his son Sri.T.P. Abdul Salam became the manager of the school.
2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 4
3. Originally, the School had an extent of 1.52 Acres of land. Later in the year 2007, the then manager and the legal heirs of Sri.Muhammed Haji sold the school building along with a portion of the land having an extent of 31.50 cents to one Aranjikkal Abdul Salam. According to the petitioners, the said transaction was in violation of Section 6(1) of the Kerala Education Act and Rule 5A of Chapter III of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for short 'KER'), since the sale was effected without obtaining prior permission from the respective Educational Authorities. It was also in violation of the area requirement prescribed under Rule 1 Chapter IV KER.
4. Subsequent to the sale, the educational authorities never recognized Sri.Aranjikkal Abdul Salam as Manager, since he had not obtained any approval from them. Thereafter, he sold the school building and 31.50 cents of the property in favour of the 6 th respondent by executing a sale deed on 08.10.2012. This sale was also in violation of Section 6(1) and Rule 5A Chapter III of the Kerala Education Act and Rules, respectively, as no prior approval had been obtained. Accordingly, it is contended that the sale itself is null and void.
2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 5
5. The 6th respondent, after purchasing the school, sold 9.5 cents out of 31.50 cents without obtaining prior permission as stated earlier, under the provisions of Kerala Education Act and Rules.
6. At the time of purchase of the school, the 6th respondent was the Junior Arabic Teacher of Pazhedom LP School. As per Rule 8 Chapter III KER, a person connected with the management should not be appointed in the school. However, the 6th respondent obtained exemption from the said provision as per Ext.P1 order dated 03.12.2012. Later, under Rule 5A of Chapter III KER, the 6 th respondent approached the Director of Public Instructions (for short 'DPI') for approval of the transfer of ownership. Though sanction was accorded, it was subject to the condition that the proposed transferee manager would protect the legal interests of the staff of the school, by all means, giving no way for any complaint, and that a compliance report would be submitted by the manager. The said sanction was further subject to the formal orders to be issued by the Assistant Educational Officer, Manjeri.
7. Thereafter, certain teachers of the school preferred the writ petition, WP(C) No. 8393/2014, before this Court against the action 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 6 of the 6th respondent in violation of the conditions specified in Ext.P2 order. By an interim order dated 30.05.2014, on the strength of the information received under the Right to Information Act that Sri.T.P. Abdul Salam was functioning as the manager of the School, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that date and observed that the transfer of management though sanctioned, was not formally effected. Later, the said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 07.02.2018, wherein it was observed that though the educational authority concerned had submitted an application for change of management, the 6th respondent herein had nominated an eligible person to be the manager of the school. The aforementioned application was considered by the educational authorities, but no order was passed. Hence, the counsel for the 6th respondent sought a direction to pass orders on the request for change of management in accordance with law. Further, it was recorded in the judgment that the 6th respondent had withdrawn her claim for being appointed and approved as manager. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioners against the exemption granted under Rule 8(2), Chapter III KER, and the sanction accorded by the DPI for change of 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 7 management, became infructuous. Thereafter, by Ext.P5 order, the application of the manager for approving the change of management and assigning managership to another person was also rejected.
8. The management of the school was thereafter entrusted to the AEO as per the proceedings of the Additional Director of General Education, as per Ext.P6. The 6th respondent challenged Exts.P5 & P6 proceedings before this Court in WP(C) No. 11137 of 2018. By judgment dated 03.04.2018, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State to consider the revision petition preferred by the 6th respondent in accordance with law. In compliance with the direction, the government, vide order dated 04.10.2018 (Ext.P8), rejected the revision preferred by the 6th respondent against the implementation of the change of management and the appointment of the AEO as manager.
9. However, the 6th respondent again approached this Court by preferring WP(C) No.34850 of 2018. This Court, by an interim order dated 25.10.2018, permitted the 7th respondent to act as manager and stayed the appointment of the AEO as manager. Under such circumstances, the 7th respondent issued a communication to the 1st 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 8 petitioner seeking an explanation from her for not handing over the charge of the school to the 6th respondent, since he had already appointed the 6th respondent as the Headmistress of the school. This was under the premise that he had already approached the AEO Manjeri, who was then acting as manager of the school, to hand over the records. It was replied by the AEO that the records were already handed over to the 1st petitioner and directed the 1st petitioner to hand over the records to the 6th respondent, who was appointed as the Headmistress. The said direction was issued in the light of Ext.P10 interim order. She was also warned of disciplinary action for not handing over the charge.
10. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred WP(C) No.37933 of 2018, by challenging the veracity and the genuineness of the minority certificate issued by the 8th respondent. The application was preferred by the 6th respondent in her capacity of manager. However, the 6th respondent was not, or could not be, the manager under the provisions of KER and therefore, cannot apply for a minority certificate. Though the change of ownership was sanctioned by the DPI as per Ext.P2, it was not recognized formally by the educational 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 9 authority. Consequent to this, the 7th respondent wrote a letter to the Ex-Headmistress of the school seeking clarification as to whether the Headmistress had preferred any application for minority status in the name of the 7th respondent as manager. In response, she clarified that she had never forwarded any such application, as per Ext.P14.
11. In the said writ petition, this court, by order dated 22.11.2018, granted an order of status quo to retain the then Headmistress. Later, by order dated 12.03.2019, this Court directed the 6th respondent to hand over all the official records to the 1 st petitioner herein or the AEO, and also to remove the second lock put on all the almirahs in the office. The AEO was directed to ensure that the 6th respondent did not interfere with the functioning of the 1 st petitioner as Headmistress. On the premises of non-compliance of the said direction, by order dated 26.03.2019, this Court again directed the AEO to take possession of the records, even with the assistance of the police. These activities of 6th respondent, being the Manager, are against the conditions prescribed in Ext.P2 order of the DPI. 6th and 7th respondents preferred an appeal against the said 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 10 interim orders. However, the court declined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
12. Thereafter, the erstwhile Headmistress submitted an application before the Minority Commission seeking details regarding the application for minority status of the school, on the ground that they suspected fraud in the issuance of Ext.P12 minority certificate. As per the details provided by the Minority Commission, it is revealed that Ext.P12 certificate was issued by the 8th respondent to the school in the year 2014. On perusal of the personal register for the year 2013-14, it is revealed from file No.19158/F2/2013 that such an application was considered on 27.03.2013. The original of the said application was handed over to the manager as per the covering letter No.19158/F2/2013 on 18.04.2013. However, it was clarified that, upon searching the records, no such communication in this regard, with the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (for short 'NCMEI') could be found.
13. Under such circumstances, the erstwhile headmistress applied under the Right to Information Act before the 8 th respondent on 29.08.2018, for obtaining details of the application for minority 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 11 status preferred by the 6th respondent. Accordingly, they received Ext.P20(2) application submitted by the 6th respondent before the government for granting minority status certificate to the school by the manager ALP School Pazhedam. But, it was pointed out that in the said application, the name of the manager was not shown. However, from Ext.P20(3-7), it was revealed that the application was forwarded by the 6th respondent in her capacity of manager on 10.01.2014, at a time when she was not the manager of the school. It was pointed out that in response to a question regarding whether an application had been moved with the concerned authority and its status, it was stated that the application had been returned for re- transmission through the proper channel on 18.04.2013. However, against the column indicating the date on which the order was rejected, it is stated 18.04.2013. It is further contended that the declaration attached to the said application was signed by the 6 th respondent on 10.01.2014. On that date, she was not the manager of the school. Thereby, a false declaration was submitted before the 8th respondent.
2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 12
14. Under such circumstances, the petitioners preferred an application before the 8th respondent seeking cancellation of the minority status issued by Ext.P12. The petitioners also preferred WP(C) No.20400 of 2019 for the speedy disposal of their application for cancellation of the minority certificate. By judgment dated 25.07.2019, a direction was issued to the 8th respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioners, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as well as the 6 th and 7th respondents and any other parties likely to be affected, within a period of three months. In compliance with the said direction, the 8th respondent, by Ext.P23 order dated 06.12.2019, rejected the application submitted by the petitioners for the reasons assigned in paragraphs 21 to 27 of the order.
15. Since the reasons assigned by the 8th respondent for rejecting the application seeking cancellation of the minority status obtained by the 6th respondent in respect of ALP School Pazhedam, are arbitrary and illegal, the petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition, praying to set aside the same and for a declaration that ALP 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 13 School is not entitled to the status of minority school, since it was not established as a minority institution.
16. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the attention of this Court certain decisions primarily with respect to Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act and Rule 5A of Chapter III KER, i.e., Manager, Koyyode Madrassa U.P. School v.Director of Public Instruction [2011 (1) KLT 150], Roopa A.K. v. State of Kerala and others [2014 (1) KLT 483] and Rashida K v. N.Sidrathul Munthaha [2025 KLT OnLine 1885]. The common issue involved in these cases was that prior permission is required for the transfer of school management and its properties. In this case, no such permission was obtained by the 6 th respondent before acquiring ownership of the school. Therefore, the transfer of management of the school in the name of the 6th respondent, as well as her predecessor in interest, i.e. Arinjickal Abdul Salam, was, per se, illegal. In the light of such illegality, the subsequent exemption granted by the Government under Rule 8(2) of Chapter III, without looking into these aspects, is also invalid.
2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 14
17. Moreover, the 6th respondent had no authority to approach either the State or the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, since the AEO, Manjeri, had not passed any formal orders in compliance with Ext.P2. Therefore, the exemption granted under Ext.P12 cannot be legally sustained.
18. Moreover, the rejection of the objection preferred by the petitioners before the National Commission against Ext.P12 was done without examining the aforementioned factors. Ext.P12 was obtained through fraud by the 6th respondent, who impersonated herself as the manager of the school while making an application to the Commission for obtaining the status of minority educational institution. It is further contended that the 6th respondent approached the 8th respondent Commission without rejecting their application by the State. In fact, it was returned for curing certain defects. Therefore, the said application was not in compliance with Section 12A of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 (for short 'the Act, 2004').
19. On the other hand, the counsel for the 6th respondent drew the Court's attention to Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 15 guarantees the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. Article 30(1) provides that "all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice". The 6th respondent, who belongs to a minority community, has purchased the school for the benefit of the minority community and is therefore entitled to categorise the school as a minority institution, as contemplated under 12B of the Act, 2004.
20. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent further contended that Section 10 of the Act, 2004 prescribes the right to establish a minority educational institution. Section 11 prescribes the functions of the Commission, and Section 12 deals with the powers of the Commission. Section 11B is the power to conduct an enquiry suo moto or on a petition, regarding the deprivation or violation of the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Similarly, Section 11(f) authorises the Commission to decide all questions relating to the status of any institution as a minority educational institution and to declare its status as such. He further contended that the contention of the petitioners with respect 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 16 to approaching the commission without awaiting rejection of their application by the State cannot be sustained in light of Section 11(f).
21. In support of his contention he has produced two decisions in Sisters of St.Joseph of Cluny v. State of West Bengal [2018 (2) KLT 521 SC] and Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew [2017 (3) KLT 713] wherein it was held that, after the introduction of the Act, 2004 it is within the jurisdiction and mandate of the National Commission to issue a certificate regarding the status of minority educational institution. Once the Commission issues such a certificate, it constitutes a declaration of the institution's existing status.
22. The contention of the petitioners that approval of the appointment of a manager is required for a change of ownership involving a change of management is completely denied by the 6 th respondent, who contends that Rule 5A Chapter III KER does not contemplate the requirement of any prior permission. Rule 5A KER reads thus :
2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 17 "5A. [ Management of Government schools and Aided Schools taken over or a acquired by Government. [Inserted by notification No.3294/Leg/C1/2000/Law dated 12-5-2010 published in Kerala Gazette No.869 dated 12-5-2000.]
- The Management of every Government school and that of aided school taken over or acquired by the Government under section 14 or section 15 as the case may be shall vest as specified below in the local authority noted against each namely:-
(a) Pre-primary schools and primary } Village Panchayat having jurisdiction over schools in rural areas the area in which the school is situate
(b) High schools (including Lower } District Panchayat having jurisdiction over Primary or Upper Primary section the area on which the school is situate attached to High schools) and Higher Secondary schools in rural areas
(c) Pre-Primary school, Primary } Municipality having jurisdiction over the schools, Upper Primary schools, High area in which the school is situate.
schools and Higher Secondary schools in urban areas.
23. The primary contention pressed by the counsel for the 6 th respondent is based on the Note to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Chapter III KER, which says that Rules 4 & 5 do not apply to a change of management involving a change of ownership. Rule 4 stands for the approval of the appointment of managers by the educational officers, whereas Rule 5 stands for the change of management, which also requires approval from the educational officer. Whereas, the change 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 18 of management involves a change of ownership. Rule 5A of Chapter III KER does not contemplate any approval from the educational authorities, except prior permission from the Director.
24. It is the contention of the 6th respondent that, to meet the requirement of minority status, it is not required that the School be managed by a member of a minority community. Section 2(5) of the KER defines a minority school. It means schools of their choice established and administered or administered by such minorities having the right to do so under Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution. Similarly, Section 2(g) of the Act, 2004 defines a minority institution as a college or an educational institution established and administered by a minority or minorities. Accordingly, he asserted that it is not necessary for an educational institution to be established by a member of a minority community; even the purchase of the same can entitle such purchaser to apply for obtaining a minority status.
25. In support of his contention, the counsel for the 6 th respondent has pointed out a reported decision in Francis C.V. v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (1) KLT SN 78] wherein this Court 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 19 held that the word 'established' cannot be understood in isolation from the object and purpose of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Etymologically, the word 'establish' means founding or creation. However, it can have a different meaning in a constitutional context, which is not just limited to bringing into existence through founding. The Constitution being a living document, must be capable of encompassing all situations in which rights are intended to be protected. The main object of Article 30(1) is to accord protection to minorities, to create a sense of equality with the majority and to bring up minority institutions to compete with any other institutions of excellence. Thus, an educational institution purchased by a minority and dedicated to the cause of the minority would also fall within the meaning of "establish". This establishment embraces giving life and soul to any existing institution through dedication.
26. In the light of said contentions, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent seeks to establish that, by purchasing the school through Ext.R6(b), the 6th respondent was entitled to apply for the status of a minority educational institution. Further, on the strength of Rule 3(2) of Chapter III KER, it is contended that, in the case of an 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 20 aided institution under individual management, the individual proprietor may act as the manager. In these capacities the 6 th respondent approached the 8th respondent Commission for invoking power under Section 12(b) which says "without prejudice to the provisions contained in the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 (19 of 1992), where an authority established by the Central Government or any State Government, as the case may be, for grant of minority status to any educational institution rejects the application for grant of such status, the aggrieved person may appeal against such order of authority to the Commission."
27. Here, in the case in hand, the competent authority defined under Section 2(ca) of the Act, 2004 was not appointed at the time of submission of the application. Therefore, the 6th respondent approached the Commission with the intention of invoking its functions as provided under Section 11(f).
28. Finally, it was concluded by the learned counsel for the 6 th respondent that the power to cancel minority status vests with the Commission only in certain cases. Such power is provided under 12C of Act, 2004, which says "the Commission may, after giving a 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 21 reasonable opportunity of being heard to a minority educational institution to which minority status has been granted by an authority or Commission, as the case may be, cancel such status under the following circumstances, namely:-
a) If the Constitution, aims and objects of the educational institution, which has enabled it to obtain minority status, has subsequently been amended in such a way that it no longer reflects the purpose or character of a minority educational institution;
b) If, on verification of the records during the inspection or investigation, it is found that the minority educational institution has failed to admit students belonging to the minority community in the institution as per rules and prescribed percentage governing admissions during any academic year."
29. In the case in hand, no such instance has occurred for approaching the Commission for cancellation of the minority status granted by the Commission to the 6th respondent's school. Hence, the rejection as per Ext.P23 is legally sustainable.
2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 22
30. I have heard Sri.V. Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.M. Pareeth for the 6th respondent, Sri.T.Jayan, the learned Government Pleader.
31. The sole question to be decided is whether the decision by the 8th respondent in rejecting the petitioners' application for revocation of the minority status issued to the ALP School, Pazhedam, is sustainable.
32. In order to ascertain the same, two primary aspects need to be considered. The first one is whether the revocation or cancellation is sought by the petitioners under Section 12C of Act, 2004. The second one is whether the Commission was justified in rejecting the application on the alleged factual premises that the 6 th respondent misrepresented facts and committed fraud before the Commission in obtaining minority status for the School.
33. Section 12C of the Act, 2004 contemplates situations in which the Commission may, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to a minority institution to which minority status has been granted by the authority or Commission, as the case may be, cancel such status under two circumstances: (i) if the Constitution, aims and 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 23 objectives of the Educational Institution have been amended in a way that they no longer reflects purpose or character of a minority educational institution : or (ii) if upon verification of the records during inspection or investigation, it is found that the minority educational institution has failed to admit students belonging to minority community in the institution as per the rules and the prescribed percentage governing the admission during any academic year. In the case in hand, there is no such situation. Hence, revocation or cancellation under Section 12C of the Act, 2004 is not warranted.
34. The second question to be considered is whether the Commission is justified in rejecting the objection on the premise that fraud vitiates everything. For that, it requires examining certain facts involved in this case. Primarily, the acquisition of the ownership of the school by the 6th respondent is by purchasing the building and a certain extent of land, i.e. 31.50 cents out of 1.52 Acres of land from the successor in interest of Sri.Muhammed Haji, who established the school, i.e. Aranjickal Abdul Salam. It is a fact that neither Sri.Aranjikkal Abdul Salam nor the 6th respondent obtained any prior permission from the Government or the educational authorities, as 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 24 contemplated under Section 6(1) of the Kerala Education Act and Rule 5A of Chapter III KER.
35. The very existence of the school itself is in question, since by selling the building and a portion of the land of the school, the school no longer meets the requirements for a Lower Primary School as per Rule 1 Chapter IV KER.
36. Then, by making an application as per Ext.P20 and the declaration given along with the application, the 6 th respondent impersonated as the manager of the school. Although the 6 th respondent purchased the school, she had only been granted an exemption by the government as per Ext.P1, in her capacity as a teacher at the same school and was not recognised by the educational authorities as the manager of the school, at any point of time. Even the Ext.P2 order, whereby the DPI sanctioned the request of the 6th respondent for the transfer of ALPS Pazhedam, was subject to the formal orders of the AEO Manjeri. However, no formal orders were passed by AEO Manjeri, which was subsequently subjected to various litigations. Thereafter, she even withdrew her claim for being 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 25 appointment as Manager of the School. Later, the management was entrusted with the AEO.
37. It is a fact which speaks through the records that, on the date of application, the 6th respondent was not the manager of the school, contrary to the declaration she signed in the application for minority status certificate. Moreover, the School does not comply with the parameters prescribed under Rule 1 Chapter IV KER. Thereby, the impersonation as manager of the School amounts to fraud and misrepresentation of facts before the Commission, for obtaining minority status for the educational institution owned by the 6th respondent.
38. These aspects, though discussed in the order, were not properly considered with reference to the facts involved in the case. The Commission entered into a finding that the 6th respondent has not misled the Commission in obtaining the minority status certificate. The justification assigned was that, even if the 6th respondent wasn't the manager of the LP School, she was the owner of LP School, Pazhedam according to the sale deed dated 08.10.2012. This fact had already been accepted by this Court and the State Government 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 26 Authorities, and the Commission granted a minority certificate to the school, not to the individual. However, the Commission omitted to assess the fraud committed by the 6 th respondent, which vitiates the order granted on the application given by her. Moreover, the Commission failed to assess that the School purchased by the petitioner does not qualify the parameters prescribed under Rule 1 Chapter IV KER.
39. Under these circumstances, though the application preferred by the petitioners for cancellation of minority status was admittedly not under Section 12C, as no ingredients under Section 12C are involved. In that premise, had the Commission properly recognised the fraud by the 6th respondent in obtaining the minority status for the school, it would have reached a different conclusion. On these observations, I am not hesitant to hold that the Commission has erred in rejecting the application for cancellation of the minority status.
Under such circumstances, Exts.P12 & P23 are set aside, and the Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ JUDGE ttb 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 27 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32806/2019 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO 5765/2012/G.EDN DATED 3.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENTS ORDER NO G2/78983/2012/DPI DATED 7.3.2014.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO 88393/2014 DATED 30.5.2014 EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT WPC NO 8393/2014 DATED 7.2.2018 EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO C/1623/2017 DATED 13.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO G2/82026/2017 DATED 20.3.2018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 11137/2018 DATED 3.4.2018 EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF GO(MS) NO 3959/2018/G.EDN DATED 4.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TAKING OVER THE MANAGEMENT OF ALP SCHOOL PAZHEDAM DATED 31.3.2018 EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO 34850/2018 DATED 25.10.2018 EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.11.2018 EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINORITY CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY 6TH RESPONDENT TO ALP SCHOOL PAZHEDAM DATED 22.9.2014 EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SRI.T.P. ABDUL SALAM THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL DATED 8.1.2018 EXHIBIT P14 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SMT. CLARAMMA O.A RETIRED HEAD MISTRESS OF THE SCHOOL DATED NIL 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 28 EXHIBIT P15 PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTREM ORDER IN WPC NO 37933/2018 DATED 22.11.2018 EXHIBIT P16 PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO 37933/2018 DATED 12.3.2019 EXHIBIT P17 PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO 37933/2018 DATED 26.3.2019 EXHIBIT P18 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO 1030/2019 DATED 8.4.2019 EXHIBIT P19 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.11.2018 EXHIBIT P20 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT FOR MINORITY CERTIFICATE OBTAINED FROM THE 8TH RESPONDENT OFFICE UNDER THE RTI ACT EXHIBIT P21 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P22 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 20400/2019 DATED 25.7.2019 EXHIBIT P23 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT IN CASE NO 478/2019 DATED 6.11.2019 EXHIBIT P24 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN WPC NO 37933/2018 DATED 14.11.2019 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R6(a) A true photocopy of the proceedings No. G2/48379/2012/ DPI/KDis dated 17-09-2012 issued by the Director of Public Instruction Exhibit R6(b) . A true photocopy of the sale deed No. 6718 of 2012 dated 08-10-2012 of Manjeri Sub Registry Exhibit R6(c) A true photocopy of GO (Rt) No. 2762/2023/GEDN dated 05-05-2023 Exhibit R6(d) A true photocopy of the application dated 24- 08-2022 under Right to Information Act submitted by this respondent before the Public Information Officer, Office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Manjeri Exhibit R6(e) A true photocopy of the reply dated 05-09-2022 issued by the Public Information Officer, Office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Manjeri Exhibit R6(f) A true photocopy of the notarized affidavit dated 26-12-2017 submitted by the said T.P. 2025:KER:73281 WP(C) No. 32806 of 2019 29 Abdul Salam and marked as Exhibit P7 in W.P.(C) 9750/2018 Exhibit R6(g) A true photocopy of the judgment dated 27-03- 2018 in W.P.(C) No. 9750/2018 Exhibit R6(h) A true photocopy of the order dated 06-06-2023 in Criminal M.P. No. 2733/2022 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Manjeri ExhibitR5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(Rt) NO.2762/2023/G.Edn DATED 5-05-2023