Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.1. According to the appellant, this amendment to the trust deed is invalid. Even after the said amendment, Thandparakkal Muhammed continued as the Manager of the school till his death. After the death of Muhammed, the 5 th respondent was wrongly appointed as the Manager of K.M. High School, even without any authority of law, and it was approved by the District Educational Officer, violating Rule 4 of Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules ('KER' in short). Therefore, the Additional Director General of Education (General) set aside the order of the District Educational Officer and temporarily entrusted the management of the school to the District Educational Officer. The 5 th respondent then challenged this decision by filing a revision petition under sub-rule 4 of Rule 4 of Chapter III of KER. The Government passed an order WA No.1117 of 2025 2025:KER:73190 quashing the order of the Director General of Education and confirmed the order of the District Educational Officer. The amendment effected to the trust is alleged to involve the transfer of possession of the trust's accessories and assets. Such a transfer, since executed without the previous permission of the District Educational Officer, is prohibited by Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act. The Kottarakkad Charitable Trust is neither an educational agency nor a proprietary body, and it does not have any proprietary rights over the property and management of the school. Even after the alleged amendment to the trust, it does not qualify as an educational agency as the amendment lacks legal standing. As per Ext.P1 trust deed, Muhammed had no intention to transfer K.M. High School, Karulai, to the trust. Though Clause 21 of Ext.P2 trust deed states that the Chairman shall be the Manager or Director of all educational or other institutions of the trust, the said clause relates to educational or other institutions which the trust may establish or maintain in terms of Ext.P1. There is no indication in Ext.P1 that K.M. High School, Karulai, had ever been intended to be an educational institution under the trust. As WA No.1117 of 2025 2025:KER:73190 such, the individual educational agency continued to be Mr. Muhammed in spite of the formation of the trust, and after his death, his legal heirs became the corporate educational agency of the school. Therefore, as per the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and Rules, only the legal heirs of Muhammed could have appointed the Manager of the school, that too after the constitution of bye-laws in terms of Rule 2 of Chapter III of KER.

8. It is submitted that the challenge against that order is totally unsustainable both in law and facts. The contention that the Trust cannot appoint a Manager is incorrect. It may be pointed out here that from the year 2013 the father of these respondents and the petitioner was functioning as Manager pursuant to the resolution of the Trust. While so the amendment made by the Trust on various dates to the byelaws including the administration of the school was approved by the Government as early as on 19.06.2014, a true copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R5(h). Clause 12 of the bye-laws specifically says that the Chairman of the Trust shall be the Manager of the school till his death. After his death as per the decision of the Trust this respondent was appointed as Manager, which was duly approved by the District Educational Officer.

12. The petitioner, it is respectfully submitted that, cannot WA No.1117 of 2025 2025:KER:73190 challenge the amendment made to the Trust in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Her remedy to challenge the same is elsewhere and not before this Hon'ble Court. The Trust and amendment have already been approved by the department, which is within the knowledge of the petitioner and unchallenged by her till the filing of the petition before the District Educational Officer. The petitioner therefore, is disentitled to any discretionary reliefs from this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P2 amendment to the Trust now in late 2024. Admittedly the amendment of the Trust was approved by the department evidenced by Ext.P4. That also has not been challenged by the petitioner till date. The contention that the amendment to the Trust is not by a registered instrument, cannot be raised in a writ petition as the petitioner herself was a party to the amendment and the department had long back approved the amendment. What the petitioner is challenging is the Trust deed and the amendment in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which it is submitted, is patently unsustainable in law particularly because the amendment has been acted upon by the departmental authorities who have granted approval to the continuance of the Trustee as Manager and later on his death this respondent as Manager.

4. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 24.10.2024 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

5. By the impugned judgment dated 13.05.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 13 to 17 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus:

"13. Thandaparakkal Muhammed founded the School in the year 1968. He was the individual educational agency and Manager of the School then. Ext.P1 public Charitable Trust was constituted on 05.02.2013. Ext.P2 amendment was made to the Trust Deed on 05.11.2013. The amendment provided that it is desirous of entrusting the management of the School along with its building, accessories and assets to the Trust for the purpose of conducting the School under the management of the Trust, without involving any change of landed property and managership of the School. The WA No.1117 of 2025 2025:KER:73190 petitioner challenges Ext.P2 amendment. Constitution of a Trust or amendment to a Trust Deed, cannot be challenged in writ proceedings.