Allowed

St.Mary Davis v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Nov 2012WP(C)/1088/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order declining minority status to her educational institution. The Court found inconsistency between the order and subsequent government actions conferring similar status. It set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; First respondent directed to reconsider matter and pass a speaking order within two months after giving hearing.

St.Mary Davis Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/30TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C). No. 1088 of 2012 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SR.MARY DAVIS, AGED 65 YEARS DAUGHTER OF DAVIS PARACKA, AGED 65 YEARS MOTHER PROVINCIAL AND MANAGER CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, MARY MATHA PROVINCE ANGAMALY, PIRAROOR, KALADY-683574 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (CORRECTED AS SR.ANNIE DAVIS D/O. DEVASSY AGED 52 YEARS AS PER ORDER DATED 23/02/2012 IN IA 2733/2012)

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUACATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

¶12

ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683101.

¶14

4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

¶15

ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683572.

¶16

5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

¶17

NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C). No. 1088 of 2012 (I)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY OF HTE CONGREGATION OF MOTHER OF CARMEL DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF VIMALA PROVINCE DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF MARY MATHA PROVINCE ALONG WITH APPENDIX 1 AND II SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DATED 17/091988. EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO. ET4-23249/88/R DIS./DPI OF THE 2ND RESONDENT DATD 15/09/1988. EXHIBIT P4(a): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO. L.DIS 108680/88/ET (4) OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08/03/1989. EXHIBIT P5 : COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF SMT. E.P.ANNIES DATED 02/07/1993 AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, ALWAYE DATED 21/03/1994. EXHIBIT P6 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. M4 129962/76 DATED 16/12/1976. EXHIBIT P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.. M4 129962/76 DATED 14/12/1976. EXHIBIT P8 : COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 15/12/2005. EXHIBIT P9 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO. 3829 OF 2006 F DATED 10/02/2006. EXHIBIT P10 : COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 4043/06/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 18/09/2006, EXHIBIT P11 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC 2870/2008-N. EXHIBIT P12 : COPY OF THE G.OP.(RT)NO. 5597/11/G.EDN DATED 15/12/2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P13 : COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO. 3720/G.EDN OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 20/07/2005.

¶24

(Contd...)

¶25

WP(C). No. 1088 of 2012 (I) 2

¶26

EXHIBIT P14 : COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO. 904/06/G.EDN DATED 28/02/2006 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P15 : COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO. 4336/08/G.EDN DATED 29/09/2008 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P16 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.26/2010-2011 OF THE MANAGER DATED 31.03.2011. EXHIBIT P17 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.27/2010-2011 OF THE MANAGER DATED 31.03.2011. EXHIBIT P18 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.30/2010-2011 OF THE MANAGER DATED 11.05.2011.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶32

¶33

W.P.(c) No. 1088 OF 2012

¶34

¶35

Dated this the 21^st day of November , 2012

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Denial of minority status to the petitioner's Institution is the subject matter of challenge. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that the petitioner had approached the Government by filing Ext.P8 application claiming minority status as early as in December 2005. As nothing transpired in the positive, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3829/2006, which culminated in Ext.P9 judgment, whereby the Government was directed to consider the application and to pass appropriate orders.

¶38

Pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, though the matter was considered by the Government, the claim was turned down as per Ext.P10 order, the operative portion of which reads as follows :

¶39

“ Hence the request of the Manager in the

¶40

representation read as 1st paper above will be considered only after the guidelines issued by

¶41

W.P.(C)No.1088/2012

¶42

¶43

Government. The educational officers need not insist on such certificates as the relevant issues should be decided only after the guidelines are finalised and Government began to issue such certificates. The judgment in W.P(C)No.3829/2006 is complied with accordingly.”

¶44

In view of the green card given by the Government as per the above stipulation, directing the Departmental Authorities not to insist the certificates, the petitioner proceeded with appointment of a competent Headmaster, so as to meet the needs of the hour; lest the student community shall be put to difficulty. It is stated that such appointment made by the petitioner was never rejected.

¶45

In the course of time, the petitioner wanted to assert the positive rights as a Minority Institution and it was accordingly, that the petitioner sought to challenge Ext.P10, by filing W.P.(C) No.2870/2008. The petitioner also sought to rely on the course being pursued by the Government by considering and conferring minority status in several other cases as well. This led to Ext.P11 judgment dated 18/11/2009, whereby the State Government was directed to

¶46

W.P.(C)No.1088/2012 3

¶47

reconsider Ext.P10 for granting minority status to the petitioner also, in the light of Exts.P11 to P13 orders dated 27/07/2005, 28/02/2006 and 29/09/2008 respectively (granting such minority status to the concerned institutions). Purportedly in compliance with the above direction, the Government reconsidered Ext.P10 and passed Ext.P12 order on 15/12/2011, virtually rejecting the claim, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶48

The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein nothing supplementary has been stated, but for reiterating the stand as reflected from Ext.P12.

¶49

The petitioner has produced a copy of the Government Order dated 14.08.2012 as Ext.P19 along with I.A.No.15682/2012,

¶50

wherein the claim mooted by similarly situated institutions has been considered and minority status has been conferred upon such institutions.

¶51

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶52

On going through the contents of Ext.P12, it is seen that the

¶53

report submitted by the Committee constituted earlier was not

¶54

W.P.(C)No.1088/2012

¶55

¶56

acceptable to the Government and hence a new Committee was constituted in the manner, as mentioned in paragraph 5 of Ext.P12. It was also asserted therein that, the minority status of the institution would be considered on the basis of the recommendation of the said Forum. It was accordingly, that the claim of the petitioner vide Ext.P10 application was considered and rejected. But going by the contents of Ext.P12, nothing is stated therein with regard to the course pursued by the Government granting such minority status to various other institutions, as borne by Exts.P13 to P15 (which were produced as Exts.P11 to P13 in W.P.(C)No.2870/2008, wherein Ext.P11 judgment was passed). It is also relevant to note that, Ext.P15 order came to be passed on 29/09/2008, wherein no reference is made to any Committee or its report. Coming to Ext.P19, it is an order passed on 14.08.2012 conferring minority status upon the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29273/2005. The observation made by the Government in the said order as contained in paragraph 8 is relevant to be noted and hence is extracted :

¶57

“ The school established by a single

¶58

W.P.(C)No.1088/2012

¶59

¶60

philanthropic individual can also claim the status of minority institution. The Government is the competent authority to declare an institution as minority institution and in the instant case Government have already granted minority right to the school after following the procedural formalities to a certain extent. The institution has not violated any of the provisions in the Kerala Education Rules warranting withdrawal of the status already granted.”

¶61

This Court finds that the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent on 8.11.2012 virtually reiterating/reproducing the stand taken in Ext.P12 does not tally with the course and proceedings pursued by the first respondent, particularly, by way of Ext.P19. In the said circumstance, the impugned order i.e. Ext.P12 cannot but be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of Ext.P13 to P15 produced herein and also Ext.P19, specifically adverting to the relevant facts and circumstances. A speaking order as above shall be passed, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate

¶62

W.P.(C)No.1088/2012

¶63

¶64

within two months from the date of receipt of a cop of this judgment.

¶65

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a

¶66

copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.

¶67

Writ petition is allowed. No cost.

¶68

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶69

sv.

¶70

W.P.(C)No.1088/2012 7

St.Mary Davis v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.Mary Davis 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suseela.K Vs the State of Kerala

Karayi Gopalan Vs Director General,Cisf

Seetha R Vs Kollam Corporation

K.Deepa Vs the State of Kerala

Sudheesh S.Panicker Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Shiby Paul Vs the State of Kerala