S.6 Kerala Education Act | Appointment Of Manager Void If Property Of Aided School Is Alienated Without Govt Approval: High Court

In a Writ Appeal preferred by the teachers of the said aided school, the Division Bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar considered the challenge to the appointment of the manager of the school by the current owner in the light of S. 6 of the KEA.

Finding the entire transaction, including the appointment of manager and alienation of property, to be void, the Bench held that permission cannot be obtained merely by invoking Rule 5A of Chapter III of the KER when S.6 is a prerequisite. It observed thus:

“…We make it clear that in all other matters, before the aided school property is being alienated, it is the mandate of the law that permission shall be obtained from the Government or any officer authorised by the Government in this regard, and such permission cannot be obtained merely by invoking Rule 5A of Chapter III of the KER, which is only a procedural rule enabling the recording of a change in ownership consequent upon an approved transfer or by operation of the law…”

The Court also made a detailed comparison between Section 6 of the Act and Rule 5A of KER, and highlighted the purposes of both the provisions in a tabular form. According to the Court, the objective of S.6 is to ensure that the transfer of property of aided schools is not done indiscriminately, adversely affect the working of the school and jeopardising the future of the students. When no officer is appointed for consideration as per the law, it is upon the transferor or transferee to move the Government for obtaining the previous permission.

Noting that there is a lack of clarity in the law regarding such transactions, the Division Bench clarified that it is upon the Government to decide whether permission can be given or not and directed the Government to consider the matter afresh under S.6 KEA along with R.5A KER.

Observing that there is nothing to prevent the Government from reconsidering the approval even though transfer was already effected without prior permission, the Court allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the judgment of the Single Bench. The Court left it to the Government to decide whether post facto approval can be granted or not in this case.

However, the Court also stated that though such a transfer of property would be null and void for the purposes of the KEA and the Rules thereunder, it will not become void as regards the transactions under the Transfer of Property Act, 1802.

Case No: WA No. 4 of 2025

Case Title: Rashida K. and others v. N. Sidrathul Munthaha and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 277

Counsel for Petitioners: V. Varghese

Counsel for Respondents: S.M. Prem, H. Narayanan, P.M. Pareeth, Aiswarya Venugopal, Najeeb P.S.

Click to Read/Download Order