2002 (1) TMI 1338 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the petitioner's claim to continue as the Manager of the school.
2. Legitimacy of Exhibit R5(b) agreement.
3. Authority of the DEO's decision approving the fifth respondent as the Manager.
4. Qualification and eligibility of the fifth respondent to be the Manager.
5. Civil disputes arising from the management and ownership of the school.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the petitioner's claim to continue as the Manager of the school.
The petitioner claimed to be the Manager of Kunhimon Haji Memorial High School (KHMHS) after the death of his father, Hamsa Haji, who was the original Manager and Individual Educational Agency. Initially, the petitioner was authorized to manage the school temporarily during Hamsa Haji's illness and absence, as per Exhibits P2 and P3. However, this authorization ceased upon Hamsa Haji's death, and the management rights devolved to all legal representatives of the deceased, including the petitioner, his mother (the fifth respondent), and other heirs.

Issue 2: Legitimacy of Exhibit R5(b) agreement.
Exhibit R5(b) was an agreement executed by all legal representatives of Hamsa Haji, including the petitioner, to retain the school and premises as common property until sold. The agreement stipulated that the petitioner would continue as Manager, subject to the majority decision of the legal representatives. The petitioner later contested the validity of this agreement, alleging it was signed under fraud, threat, and coercion. However, the court held that such agreements are voidable, not void, and must be challenged through appropriate civil proceedings. Since the petitioner did not pursue such action, he remained bound by the terms of Exhibit R5(b).

Issue 3: Authority of the DEO's decision approving the fifth respondent as the Manager.
The DEO's Exhibit P7 order approved the fifth respondent (the mother) as the Manager of the school, following a majority decision by the legal representatives. This decision was upheld by the Director of Public Instructions (DPI) and the Government, as reflected in Exhibits P11 and P16. The court affirmed that the DEO's decision was valid and in accordance with the majority decision of the co-owners, as per Exhibit R5(b). Any civil disputes regarding this decision were to be resolved in civil court, not by the DEO.

Issue 4: Qualification and eligibility of the fifth respondent to be the Manager.
The petitioner argued that the fifth respondent was unqualified to be the Manager due to illiteracy and physical incapacity. Rule 8(4) of Chapter III of KER requires a Manager to be literate, solvent, and interested in educational practice. The court found that the fifth respondent was literate, supported by a certificate from the Village Officer. Additionally, her physical ailment (amputation of a leg) did not disqualify her from managing the school, as there were no allegations of mental incapacity.

Issue 5: Civil disputes arising from the management and ownership of the school.
The court emphasized that the decisions of Educational Authorities do not settle civil rights and are subject to civil court adjudication. The petitioner could challenge the majority decision and the agreement (Exhibit R5(b)) in civil court. The court cited the Division Bench ruling in Abdul Rahim v. State of Kerala, which supports the right to agitate civil disputes in civil court despite decisions by Educational Authorities.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both original petitions, O.P. Nos. 32683/1999 and 26626/2001, affirming the fifth respondent's appointment as the Manager of KHMHS. The petitioner's contentions were not substantiated, and the legal representatives' majority decision, as per Exhibit R5(b), was upheld. The petitioner was advised to seek civil court intervention for any disputes regarding the agreement or the management decisions.