BY AD v. SRI.K.JAJU BABU

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KIZHISSERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. SMT.FATHIMA, W/O.LATE UNNEENKUTTY.U.K., KANNANCHOLAYIL HOUSE, OMANOOR P.O., CHERUVAYUR, (VIA) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 645. ABDUL LATHEEF.U.K., KANNANCHOLAYIL HOUSE, OMANOOR P.O., CHERUVAYUR (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 645. (*)ADDL.R7 ABOOBACKER U.K., REP.BY POA HOLDER MUHAMMED ARIF U.K S/O. MOHAMED HAJI, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HIS SON MUHAMMED ARIF U.K., BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KANNAN CHOLAYIL HOUSE, OMANOOR P.O., CHEEKKOD, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (*) ADDITIONAL R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON IA NO.1/2022 DATED BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL SMT.VINITHA B., SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.2468/2019 -:3:- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & SOPHY THOMAS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.2468/2019 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of February, 2024 J U D G M E N T A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. The dispute relating to managership of A.M.L.P School, Omanoor in Malappuram District was considered by the Education Department and the Government. The Department and the Government was of the view that, late U.K.Mohammedkutty Haji will have to prove his claim as the Manager through the civil court. The learned Single Judge affirmed that order. This appeal was initially preferred by U.K.Mohammedkutty . He passed away. His legal heirs are now prosecuting this appeal.

There are no documents to show that U.K.Mohammedkutty Haji was the Manager of the school though he acted as the Manager of the school. His brother’s children contended that the school belonged to U.K.Mohammed Haji, father of U.K.Mohammedkutty Haji, W.A.No.2468/2019 -:4:- and misleading the Educational Department, he acted as the Manager, as both names are similar.

The contesting party respondent has a case that U.K.Mohammed Haji was the Manager and on his death, the school has to function as a corporate agency of the family . The department finding that there is absolutely no document to establish U.K.Muhammedkutty Haji was appointed and approved as a Manager, relegated U.K.Mohammedkutty Haji and to approach the civil court.

The learned counsel for the appellants, the legal heirs of U.K.Muhammedkutty Haji, referring to explanation to Section 7 of the Kerala Education Act submits that the school was established prior to formation of State of Kerala and based on the deeming provision under explanation to Section 7, he is deemed to be the Manager appointed under the Kerala Education Act. He refers to various appointments made by him in the past and the certificates issued by the Village Officer to show that he is in possession of the school building.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the party respondents placed reliance on Annexure.R5(a), a document in the W.A.No.2468/2019 -:5:- year 1958. This was a release deed executed by the brother of Mohammed Haji releasing his right to Mohammed Haji. School building is situated in schedule No.7. If this document is accepted and relied, it has to be assumed that the school belonged to Mohammed haji and not to his son U.K.Mohammedkutty Haji exclusively. There is dearth of documents to establish approval granted as a Manager to U.K.Mohammedkutty Haji. To claim the benefit of the deeming provision under Explanation to Section 7 of the Kerala Education Act, U.K.Mohammedkutty Haji has to prove that he was the Manager as on the enactment of the Kerala Education Act in the year 1959. The volume of documents produced by either side clearly establishes that there exists a civil dispute, and the education authority or the Government cannot resolve such disputes. In the absence of any document to establish that U.K.Mohammedkutty Haji was the Manager prior to 1959, and also in the absence of any document to show that he was approved as the Manager after 1959 under the Kerala Education Act and Rules, the dispute will have to be resolved by the Civil Court. The Education Department or the Government is not competent to decide the title of the school after adverting to the evidence adduced by either side. The Department and the W.A.No.2468/2019 -:6:- Government only need to consider evidence or proof regarding approval as Manager prior to 1959 or under the Kerala Education Act. That being the case, there is no scope in interfering with the orders and the judgment of the learned Single Judge.