Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

O.BALAN, ASSISTANT TEACHER versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


O.BALAN, ASSISTANT TEACHER v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 22337 of 2005(H) [2007] RD-KL 5337 (13 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 22337 of 2005(H)

1. O.BALAN, ASSISTANT TEACHER,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

5. K.P.RAVEENDRAN, M.C. M.U.P. SCHOOL,

6. THE MANAGER,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :13/03/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C).NOs.22337 & 22857 of 2005

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioners are teachers working in the respondent school. The dispute relates to the appointment of Headmaster. It is the common case that in purported exercise of right under Article 30, the management has appointed Sri.K.P.Raveendran, 5th respondent herein as Headmaster. This is objected by the petitioners in both the cases.

2. In respect of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.22857, it is the respondents case that he is not entitled in view of the fact that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him and also that there is another teacher who is senior to him. Petitioners have challenged the order issued by the Government as Ext.P2 in W.P. (C)NO.22857/05 which corresponds to Ext.P10 in the other writ petition. Government has proceeded to find that manager is entitled to exercise right under Article 30 and appoint WPC NOs. 22337/05 & 22857/05 2 Sri.K.P.Raveendran, the 5th respondent herein. It appears that the impugned orders in both the case have passed pursuant to the judgment produced as Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No.22337/05 in the writ appeal filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.22337/05. Therein, this court directed the Government to decide the status the respondent's institution. It was made clear that if the Government find that the respondent's institution is not a minority institution, petitioner in W.P.(C)No.22337/05 is entitled to get all service benefits including pay and allowances from 01-06-2004 onwards as Headmaster.

3. In the impugned order it is inter-alia stated as follows:

" The dispute in the instant case is whether the school was established and administered for the benefit of a minority community. It is seen that the school was established in 1943 and the area is predominantly of Muslim people. ( It is true that it is established by a non-Muslim and it was purchased by Muslim Vidyabyasa Sangham, the present management of the school, in 1985 from WPC NOs. 22337/05 & 22857/05 3 the founder Manager)".

4. No doubt, in para 6 it is stated that the school was established at the beginning itself for the benefits of the minority and now it is run by a minority community for the same purpose. Various other facts are mentioned. As per Article 30 , all minorities whether based on religion or language shall have the right to establish and administer educational institution of their choice. It is open even to a single individual to found a minority institution for the benefit of the minority.. But here, the finding is that it is established by a non-muslim and it is purchased by Muslim Vidyabyasa Sangam.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the manager Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal would contend that there is ample materials produced to show that the school was in fact established by the muslims. In such circumstances, I feel that the matter will have to be re-considered. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioners WPC NOs. 22337/05 & 22857/05 4 Sri.M.Vijayakumar has raised various contentions. However, I find that the order cannot be sustained in the face of the finding that the school was established by a non-muslim and yet Government proceeds to confer minority status. Therefore, Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)NO.22857/05 and Ext.P10 in W.P.(C)No.22337/05 shall stand quashed. First respondent will re-consider the matter with opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in both the cases, the manager and the 5th respondent. Fresh decision in accordance with law will be taken by the first respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open to the petitioners to raise all contentions available to them under law. The position as on today will continue till a decision is taken. K.M.JOSEPH

JUDGE

sv. WPC NOs. 22337/05 & 22857/05 5


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.