Disposed

The Principal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2012WP(C)/23508/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition by disposing of it in terms of a recent Division Bench judgment. The court directed the State Government to reconsider the petitioner's NOC application within six weeks, allowing re-submission after curing defects.

What did the court decide?

Directions to reconsider NOC application within six weeks; petitioner to re-submit after curing defects within three weeks.

The Principal 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

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/17TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 23508 of 2012 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE PRINCIPAL GLOBAL INDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL, KODIKULAM, THODUPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶12

GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,

¶13

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

¶15

THODUPUZHA-685 582.

¶16

3. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,

¶17

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SHIKSHAKENDRA-2 COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110 092.

¶18

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ BY ADV.SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.23508 of 2012

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2011 OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION (N) DEPARTMENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.9.2012 IN W.P.(C) NO.15326/ 2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.9.2012 ISSUED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

VPV

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶29

W.P. © No. 23508 of 2012

¶30

Dated this the 9^th October, 2012

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶33

prayers:

¶34

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order or direction quashing Ext.P1

¶35

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the 1^st respondent State Government, to take a decision on merits regarding grant of Government NOC to petitioner's school within a reasonable time limit in the light of Ext.P2

¶36

iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to direct the 2^nd respondent to receive back petitioner's application for NOC and to forward the same to the 1^st respondent to be dealt with as directed in Ext.P2

¶37

iv) to grant such other reliefs as are

¶38

¶39

W.P. © No. 23508 of 2012

¶40

just and proper in the nature of this case.”

¶41

When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue projected in this case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 08.10.2012 in W.P.(C)No.22218 of 2008 and connected matters.

¶42

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶43

The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted below:

¶44

4. 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

¶45

W.P. © No. 23508 of 2012

¶46

¶47

challenge by many writ petitioners and a learned judge of this 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.

¶48

5. 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: ( 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

¶49

¶50

¶51

adequate number of laboratories .

¶52

( 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 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 .

¶53

( 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 .

¶54

( 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 . ( 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

¶55

¶56

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

6. 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,

¶60

¶61

¶62

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.

¶63

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

¶64

The State Government is directed to consider the 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.

¶65

¶66

¶67

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

¶68

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 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.”

¶69

¶70

¶71

Considering the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the above judgment. Since it is stated that the application for 'NOC' preferred by the petitioner has been returned by the second respondent vide Ext.P3, the petitioner is given a chance to have it re-submitted after curing the 'other defects' , if any, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, the second respondent shall forward it to the first respondent, who in turn shall consider the application and appropriate orders shall be passed in the light of Ext.P2 judgment dated 14.09.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.1042 of 2012 and connected cases, at the earliest, at any rate, within six weeks thereafter.

¶72

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶73

The Principal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Mohammed Rafi M.K Vs Kerala Water Authority

B.S.S.Educational Society Vs the Director of Public Instructions

Smt. Suman Paul Vs the District Educational Officer, Malappuram