Disposed

Manager Sree Sethu Parvathy Bhai High School v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Apr 2015WP(C)/24338/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Six Member Committee's recommendation regarding higher secondary school sanctions is not final. Upon finding irregularities, the Committee must reconsider the claim by hearing both petitioners and existing allottees. Sanctions in favor of allottees must be cancelled to reinstate deserving petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Six Member Committee to hear petitioners and allottees; reconsider claims with verified materials; cancel existing sanctions if petitioners are entitled; complete exercise within two months.

Manager Sree Sethu Parvathy Bhai High School Vs… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/19TH CHAITHRA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 24338 of 2014 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MANAGER SREE SETHU PARVATHY BHAI HIGH SCHOOL KADAKKAVUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 306.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)

SMT.P.A.RINUSA

SRI.M.R.ANISON

RESPONDENT(S):

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶14

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL R BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.T.MUHAMOOD

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-04-2015, ALONG WITH WPC NO.19049/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 24338 of 2014 (N)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P)185/2013/G.EDN. DATED 11/06/2013 PRESCRIBING GUIDELINES FOR SANCTIONING PLUS TWO COURSES. EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 22/06/2013 OF 4TH RESPONDENT FORWARDING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR SANCTIONING PLUS TWO COURSES TO THE RDD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING DEFICIT OF 6212 PLUS TWO SEATS IN ATTINGAL EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT. EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILE DBY THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT SHOWING THE DEFICIT OF 2231 PLUS TWO SEATS IN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING SHORTAGE OF 800 PLUS TWO SEATS FOR ACCOMMODATIG SSLC PASSED OUT STUDENTS OF KADAKKAVU PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/07/2013 ISSUED BY THE DEO, ATTINGAL, SHOWING THE EXTENT OF LAND OWNED BY PLUS TWO APPLICANTS OF ATTINGAL EUDCAIONAL DISTRICT. EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21/04/2014 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22/05/2014 IN W.P(C) 2349/2014 EXHIBIT-P9-TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) 143/2014/G.EDN. DATED 31/07/2014. EXHIBIT-P10-TRUE COPY OF THE SIX MEMBERS COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 19/05/2014 ALONG WITH LIST OF SCHOOLS RECOMMENDED IN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.3463/2014/G.EDN. DT.28/08/2014 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 06/02/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR ON 23/01/2015 EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.12/02/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

\TRUE COPY//

PS to Judge

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C).Nos.24338/2014, 19049/2014, 20091/2014, 20384/2014 & 24425/2014

¶28

¶29

Dated this the 9^th Day of April, 2015

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

These writ petitions are filed by the Managers of various schools who were declined sanction for Higher Secondary Schools/additional batches by the Government, consequent upon the recommendation made by the Six Member Committee constituted by the Government.

¶32

The Government as per G.O.(Ms).No. 185/13/G.Edn., dated 11/06/2013, has taken a policy decision to sanction Higher Secondary Schools in 148 Grama Panchayats in the State where there are no Higher Secondary Schools either in Government or aided sectors by upgrading existing eligible High Schools. The Government also prescribed the order of preference to upgrade High Schools as follows:

¶33

i. Government High School

¶34

W.P.(C).No.24338/2014 and connected cases

¶35

-:2:-

¶36

ii. Aided High School run by Corporate Management

¶37

iii. The aided High School run by individual and trust management.

¶38

Thereafter, the Government invited applications. These petitioners responded to the notification and applied for Higher Secondary Schools/batches. The Government constituted a Six Member Committee to scrutinize and recommend the applications. However, there was challenge against certain actions of the Government. That was interfered with by the learned Single Judge. Thereupon, the Government filed W.A.No.1341/2013. The above writ appeal was allowed and the Government processed the applications. Subsequently, the Government took a decision only to sanction additional batches wherever necessary, all over the State and the Government sanctioned additional batches to many Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala. These were also challenged before this Court in W.P.(C).No.18176/2014 and connected cases. This Court passed an interim

¶39

W.P.(C).No.24338/2014 and connected cases

¶40

-:3:-

¶41

order on 18/08/2014 to the effect that no schools other than those which find place in the recommendation made by the Six Member Committee shall be permitted to commence Higher Secondary courses or shall be sanctioned Higher Secondary batches.

¶42

The main grievance of the writ petitioners is that the Six Member Committee did not advert to certain material facts which would have a bearing in their recommendation. The learned Senior Counsel Seemanthini appearing for some of the writ petitioners pin points certain irregularities in the recommendation made by the Six Member Committee.

¶43

This Court is of the view that the

¶44

recommendation of the Six Member Committee is not final. Wherever there is irregularity, that irregularity will have to be rectified by the Six Member Committee itself. The allottees of the Higher Secondary Schools/additional batches in the Panchayats and the petitioners will have to be heard before any action is taken in this matter. Therefore, these

¶45

W.P.(C).No.24338/2014 and connected cases

¶46

-:4:-

¶47

batches of writ petitions are disposed with the following directions to the Government:

¶48

i. The Six Member Committee shall hear the

¶49

petitioners and the allottees of the Higher Secondary Schools/additional batches in the Grama Panchayats. The relevant materials placed by the petitioners and others shall be verified, scrutinized and considered by the Six Member Committee. If it is found that the claims of the petitioners are genuine or entertainable, the Six Member Committee shall modify the recommendation and shall recommend the Government for sanctioning the schools/batches.

¶50

ii. The interim order passed by this Court in W.P. (C).No.18176/2014 and connected cases is not final to affect the claim of other schools. The Government will have to reconsider the matter notwithstanding the interim order passed by this Court as afore-noted after adverting to the recommendation of the Six Member Committee being exercised based on the direction of this Court.

¶51

W.P.(C).No.24338/2014 and connected cases

¶52

-:5:-

¶53

iii. If the Government finds that the petitioners

¶54

are entitled for sanction in the place of the allottees recommended by Six Member Committee, necessarily, after cancelling the sanction given to those schools, the writ petitioners shall be given sanction. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

SD/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶56

Manager Sree Sethu Parvathy Bhai High School v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager Sree Sethu Parvathy Bhai High School 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.C.P.Udayabhanu Vs Smt.Nalini Netto

Roshiban N.R. Vs Sri.P.S.Raghukumar

P.T.J.Alen Vs Sri.K.X.Joseph

Gopi Vs Corporation of Cochin

Sindu Jones Vs State of Kerala

V.C Jayaprakasan Vs the State of Kerala