In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court declared that the appointment of a school manager becomes void if the property of an aided school is transferred without obtaining prior approval from the Government, as required under Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act (KEA).
This decision was given in Writ Appeal No. 4 of 2025 in the case titled Rashida K. and others v. N. Sidrathul Munthaha and others, heard by a Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar. The appeal was filed by teachers of the school, challenging the appointment of the new manager by the current owner of the property.
“We make it clear that before any aided school property is transferred, government permission is mandatory. This cannot be bypassed using Rule 5A of Chapter III of the KER, which only allows for recording a change after proper transfer,” the Court observed.
The Court found that both the transfer of property and the appointment of the manager were invalid as they were done without the required government sanction. It emphasized that Rule 5A of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) is merely a procedural rule and does not override the substantive requirement under Section 6 of KEA, which makes prior government permission a necessity.
Read Also:- J&K High Court Confirms Detention of Man Accused of Bovine Slaughter Amid Communal Tension
The judges further compared Section 6 KEA and Rule 5A KER in detail and stated that Section 6 aims to regulate and protect school property to ensure the functioning of aided schools is not disturbed, and the students’ future is not put at risk.
“If no officer has been appointed to oversee such approvals, the responsibility lies with the transferor or transferee to approach the Government to obtain prior permission,” the Court clarified.
Read Also:- Pendency Of Arbitration Does Not Stop Stamp Authorities From Acting Under Stamp Act: Allahabad High Court
The Court also highlighted the confusion in the legal framework regarding such property transactions. It urged the Government to take a fresh look at the issue and decide whether post-facto approval (approval after the transfer) can be granted in such cases.
“There is no bar preventing the Government from reconsidering such transfers. Even if the transfer occurred without prior approval, it is still open to the Government to examine and possibly approve it,” the Court added.
However, the Court made an important distinction by stating that even though the transaction is void under the KEA, it would not be considered void under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This means that while the government can deny management rights under the Education Act, the property transfer itself remains legally valid under general property law.
Finally, the Court set aside the earlier Single Bench judgment and allowed the appeal, directing the Government to decide on the approval matter under both Section 6 of the KEA and Rule 5A of the KER.
Case No: WA No. 4 of 2025
Case Title: Rashida K. and others v. N. Sidrathul Munthaha and others
Counsel for Petitioners: V. Varghese
Counsel for Respondents: S.M. Prem, H. Narayanan, P.M. Pareeth, Aiswarya Venugopal, Najeeb P.S.
