Allowed

P.Moidu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jun 2010WP(C)/19029/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ challenging exclusion of a locality for school recognition without reconsideration. Court directed the First Respondent to consider the petitioner's application under the proviso to Rule 2(5) of Kerala Education Rules regarding the exclusion of Ward No. 7, Vilayoor.

What did the court decide?

First Respondent directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 within two months.

P.Moidu Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 19029 of 2010(C) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

P.MOIDU, S/O.KUNHUNNIYAN, AGED 61 YEARS, SECRETARY, HIMAYATHUL ISLAM CHARITABLE TRUST, KARINGANAD, VILAYOOR, PALAKKAD - 679 309.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 1.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM - 14.

¶13

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303.

¶15

THE SECRETARY, VILAYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VILAYOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 309.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 TO R4

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 19029 of 2010 C

¶20

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2010

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

With a view to overcome the educational backwardness of the Muslim community in certain districts, the Government had directed the Director of Public Instruction to identify the localities in terms of Rule 2 of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules. The contention of the petitioner is that pursuant to said direction from the Government, the second respondent identified Ward No.7 of Vilayoor Panchayat in Palakkad district also as a locality and included it in Ext.P1. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the exclusion of the aforesaid area at the time of finalizing, rather, identification of the localities for the purpose of granting recognition of unaided schools. Ext.P6 is a piece of information obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, which would reveal that Ward No.7 of Vilayoor Panchayat, Palakkad district, which was originally included in Ext.P1. Feeling aggrieved by the exclusion of the aforesaid area,

¶23

the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 under first proviso to Rule 2(5) of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules. Ext.P7 is dated 07-

¶24

WPC.19029/2010

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

06-2010. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the matter would be finalised by the respondents without considering Ext.P7. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed.

¶27

In view of the order which I propose to pass in this writ petition, I think it unnecessary to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner at this stage. Rule 2(5) of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules would reveal that Ext.P7 is maintainable and, therefore, I am of the view that the first respondent is duty bound to consider Ext.P7 and pass orders thereon. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner.

¶28

(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶29

aks

P.Moidu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Moidu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheeba Jacob Vs State of Kerala

V.Rajalakshmi Vs Deputy Director of Education

Preethi T.V Vs State of Kerala

P.P.M.Mustafa Vs Sree Sankaracharya Universityof Sanskrit

Subodh Kumar Vs the University of Calicut

Jam-Iyyathul Falah Trust Vs State of Kerala