Partly allowed

A.M.Mohammed Jelil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Oct 2012WP(C)/22218/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a series of connected writ petitions, directed the State Government to reconsider applications for NOC to obtain CBSE/ICSE affiliation. The Court applied a Division Bench judgment that struck down specific stringent norms regarding land area and student count, ordering reconsideration within six weeks or allowing fresh applications.

What did the court decide?

State Government directed to reconsider NOC applications and pass appropriate orders within six weeks of the judgment or file fresh applications within one month.

A.M.Mohammed Jelil Vs 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

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/16TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 22218 of 2008 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

A.M.MOHAMMED JELIL, S/O.KOCHU MOHAMMED, AGED 57 YEARS, MANAGER, VADUTHALA JAMA-ATH ENGLISH MEDIUM PUBLIC SCHOOL, P.O.NADUVATH NAGAR ALAPPUZHA - 688 559. BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHIKSHA KENDRA 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR NEW DELHI - 110 092.

¶12

R1-3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOE KALLIATH R4 BY SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-10-2012, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.8286/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 22218 of 2008 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX --------

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1.COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) NO.18/88/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT 12.01.1988

¶19

EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LIST OF ENCLOSURES ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FORM. DATED 12.05.2007.

¶20

EXT. P2(A). COPY OF THE RECEIPT 04.07.2007. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE VISIT REPORT OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.7.2007 EXT.P4. COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2007 (4) K.L.T. 706 DATED 14.09.2007.

¶21

EXT.P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 15.11.2007

¶22

EXT.P6.COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE AROOKKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶23

EXT.P7. COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.A. NO.2532/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶24

EXT.P8. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. (C) NO.37263/2007 J DATED 17.12.2007

¶25

EXT.P9. COY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO.2715/08/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 16.06.2008

¶26

EXT.P10. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT N W.P.(C) NO.21141/2008-P DATED 14.07.2008.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶32

W.P.(C) Nos.22218 of 2008, 8286 of 2009, 30039, 32180 of 2011, 9160, 10437, 10513,10529, 10918, 11469, 12570, 16003, 16164, 16978, 17330, 17339, 17403, 17473, 17541, 17633, 17739, 17786, 17790, 17824, 17826, 17940, 17941, 18008, 18071, 18199, 18504, 18664, 18771, 19339, 19344, 20100, 20179, 20672, 20696, 21032, 21320 & 21799 of 2012

¶33

Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2012

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The challenge involved in all these cases is with regard to the recently introduced norms for granting the 'NOC' by the State Government for getting affiliation from the CBSE/ICSE as per G.O.(Ms.) No.202/11/G.Edn. dated 07.10.2011.

¶36

The sequence of events as borne by the pleadings

¶37

reveals that, the subject matter of issuance of NOC was always a matter of dispute for quite long. The first set of norms was brought about in the year 1988, and subsequently, in the year 2007, there was a substantial modification, whereby the benefit was confined, mostly to the northern districts. On challenging the same before this Court, it was intercepted, which in turn was taken up in appeal before the Supreme Court, where it was pending.

¶38

While so, the Government came up with a new G.O as

¶39

W.P.(C) Nos.22218 of 2008 & Conn.

¶40

¶41

G.O.(Ms) No:137/2011/G.Edn dated 10.06.2011, stipulating the relevant norms for issuance of 'NOC'. This was brought to the notice of the Apex Court, when it was observed that, the matters could be caused to be considered in the light of the said norms prescribed, and accordingly, the cases which were pending before the Apex Court were disposed of, directing to finalise the proceedings within three months, subject to further guidelines to be issued by the Government.

¶42

Taking a cue from the above observation, under the guise of issuing further guidelines, the Government issued the impugned G.O dated 07.10.2011, whereby various new clauses came to be incorporated, some of which pertain to the minimum extent of three acres required, (vide clause (iv)), 'Malayalam' to be taught as a compulsory language [vide clause (vi)]; the necessity to have a minimum of 300 students to be counted as per UID scheme [vide clause (xiv)]; the minimum salary to be paid [vide clause (viii)] etc. The said G.O was subjected to challenge by many writ petitioners and a learned judge of this

¶43

W.P.(C) Nos.22218 of 2008 & Conn.

¶44

¶45

Court granted interim stay in respect of Clause (iv) and (xiv), which in turn was challenged by the State by filing W.A No. 1042/2012. A Division Bench of this Court considered the above appeal along with such other connected writ petitions and as per judgment dated 14.09.2012, the Clauses(iv), (vi) and (xiv) were set aside, simultaneously giving some positive direction with regard to the necessity to fix proper salary to the teachers/staff and to effect payment to the extent as stipulated therein, as an interim measure.

¶46

The clauses which are under challenge in the present group of writ petitions are Clauses (iv), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi) and (xiv); which are extracted below, for convenience of reference:

¶47

(iv) The institution should have minimum 3 acre of land, out of which at least 2 acres shall be in the actual location where the school is functioning in a contiguous manner. It should have adequate playground also. There should be a library and adequate number of laboratories. (viii) The school shall appoint only qualified and eligible staff and must pay the salary and allowances and other benefits to the employees of the school. Employees in the CBSE/ICSE school shall be offered the same pay scales as in Government Schools for

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) Nos.22218 of 2008 & Conn.

¶50

equivalent categories. The pay shall start at the minimum of the scale and employees shall be eligible for DA and increments as is allowed in Government Schools from time to time. (ix) The schools shall follow Pupil Teacher Ratio of 30:1 in all classes and all the teachers thus found required in the schools would be enrolled in CPF schemes. (x) The admission to the school shall be open to all without any discrimination on the ground of religion, caste or race, place of birth or any of them. All schools shall strictly comply with RTE Act and Rules and shall provide admission for students belonging to category to be notified by Government to 25% of seats. The fees payable by such students shall be fixed by Government from time to time.

¶51

(xi) Each school shall enter into a separate agreement with Government regarding clauses (vi), (vii), (viii) and (x) specifying that violation of these clauses shall result in withdrawl of NOC and recognition, without further hearing and notice. Government will put in place a mechanism to enquire into complaints, if any regarding the violation of these four clauses and the enquiry officer (not below the rank of DEO) shall hear the management s' version also before finalizing report. The enquiry report of the District Educational Officer will be final.

¶52

(xiv) The school should have been in existence for a period of five years as on the date of application for NOC and should have at least 300 students in its rolls. The UIID enrollment should be

¶53

W.P.(C) Nos.22218 of 2008 & Conn.

¶54

¶55

completed and UIID numbers of the students enrolled in the school shall be furnished.

¶56

It is seen that interim orders have been passed by this Court, intercepting Clauses (iv) and (xiv).

¶57

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that, the grievance projected in these writ petitions now stands confined to the correctness and sustainability of clauses (iv) and (xiv) alone, which have already been intercepted and set aside by the Division Bench. The learned counsel submit that, the petitioners are entitled to have the benefit of the above verdict, and the applications submitted by them are liable to be considered by the Government for the purpose of granting 'NOC' based on the observations therein. This Court holds accordingly.

¶58

W.P.(C) Nos:10437, 10529, 10918, 11469, 12570, 16003, 16978, 17330, 17339, 17473, 17541, 17633 17739, 17786, 17790, 17824, 17826, 17940, 17947, 18008, 18071, 18504, 18664, 18771, 19339, 20100, 20179, 20696, 21320 and 21799 OF 2012

¶59

The State Government is directed to consider the

¶60

¶61

W.P.(C) Nos.22218 of 2008 & Conn.

¶62

applications for 'NOC' preferred by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, extending the benefit flowing from the common judgment dated 14.09.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.1042/2012 and connected cases, as expeditiously as possible; at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶63

W.P.(C) Nos: 10513, 19349 and 20672 OF 2012 :

¶64

In these cases, the applications for NOC preferred by the petitioners therein stand already rejected by the Government; mainly with reference to the non satisfaction of the requirement under Clause (iv) and (xiv). Now by virtue of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court, whereby clauses (iv) and (xiv) have been set aside, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the said cases also reconsidered along with the other cases, as dealt with, herein-before. In the above circumstances, the State Government is directed to reconsider the applications for NOC submitted by the petitioners as above on the basis of their credentials, extending the benefit flowing from the verdict passed

¶65

W.P.(C) Nos.22218 of 2008 & Conn.

¶66

¶67

by the Division Bench in W.A No.1042/2012 and connected cases at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶68

W.P.(C) No.17403/2012

¶69

In this writ petition, the application preferred by the petitioner was not originally accepted by the Government for granting NOC, for not satisfying the requirements under clause (iv) and (xiv). But pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the same stands accepted. In the said circumstance, this case also will stand disposed of in terms of G.O.(Ms.) No.202/11/G.Edn. dated 07.10.2011 as modified/intercepted by the Division Bench of this Court, extending all the benefits flowing from the verdict dated 14.09.2012 in W.A NO.1042/2012 and connected cases. Appropriate orders shall be passed in the application for 'NOC' as above, at the earliest, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶70

W.P.(C)Nos. 18199 & 21032 OF 2012

¶71

The learned Government Pleader brings to the notice of this

¶72

W.P.(C) Nos.22218 of 2008 & Conn.

¶73

¶74

Court that in these cases, the applications for NOC stand already returned for non-satisfaction of the clauses (iv) and (xiv) of the Government Order dated 7.10.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.18199/2012 submits that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the application was resubmitted and the same has been accepted as well. In the above circumstances, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue the matter by resubmitting the applications, if not effected already and the applications shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the State extending the benefits flowing from the common verdict dated 14.09.2012 passed by the Division Bench in W.A No.1042/2012 and connected cases, at the earliest, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶75

W.P.(C)Nos.22218/08, 8286/09, 30039, 32180 of 2011 & 9160, 16164 OF 2012

¶76

In these cases, the learned Government Pleader submits that applications for NOC were submitted by the petitioners prior to 7.10.2011, when the field was governed by the earlier

¶77

¶78

W.P.(C) Nos.22218 of 2008 & Conn.

¶79

Government Orders. But in view of the subsequent Government Order dated 7.10.2011, the claims have to be reconsidered, subject to the modification made by the Division Bench as per the common judgment in W.A.No.1042/2012 and connected cases. The learned Government Pleader further submits that, in view of the stipulations in the new Government Order dated 7.10.2011, various aspects have to be clarified by the concerned petitioners by filing a fresh application in the prescribed form. In the said circumstances, the petitioners are set at liberty to file a fresh application in conformity with the requirements under the Government Order dated 7.10.2011 and as covered by the verdict passed by the Division Bench in W.A No.1042/2012 and connected cases within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on which event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, extending the benefits flowing from the decision cited supra, at the earliest, at any rate within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of the applications.

¶80

¶81

W.P.(C) Nos.22218 of 2008 & Conn.

¶82

It is also made clear that, the petitioners will be entitled to pursue the matter on the basis of the fee already remitted in respect of the applications preferred in response to the earlier Government Order dated 10.6.2011.

¶83

Writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶84

sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶85

AMV/SV

¶86

W.P.(C) Nos.22218 of 2008 & Conn.

¶87

A.M.Mohammed Jelil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M.Mohammed Jelil v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Binu M.R. Vs Simi G.

N.Natarajan Vs the District Educational Officer

E.B.Byju Vs the State of Kerala

P. Narayanan Namboodiri Vs Mr. K.C.Vijayakumar

Pratheeksha Bhavan English Medium School Vs State of Kerala and 2 Others

P.K. Sasikumar Vs State of Kerala