Dismissed

The State of Kerala, v. Anjana K.A.

Kerala HC9 Sept 2021WA/1141/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ appeal preferred by the State of Kerala against an interim order of the Single Judge in WP(C) No.17312 of 2021. The Single Judge had directed state authorities to accept applications from students with NIOS qualifications for Higher Secondary admission without insisting on an equivalency certificate if the applicant is under 17 years old. The appellate court foun

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the interim order was dismissed.

The State of Kerala, Vs Anjana K.A. — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943

¶7

WA NO. 1141 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 17312/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN WP(C):

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶12

3 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶13

4 THE DIRECTOR, SCERT, POONAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.

¶14

5 THE SECRETARY, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶15

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH

¶16

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 6TH RESPONDENT IN WP(C):

¶17

1 ANJANA K.A., AGED 16 YEARS D/O.K.S.ANILKUMAR, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER K.S.ANILKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR - 680 681.

¶18

2 NIVETHYALAKSHMI P.U., AGED 16 YEARS

¶19

D/O.UNNIKRISHNAN P.D., REPRESENTED HER FATHER UNNIKRISHNAN P.D., AGED 54 YEARS,

¶20

W.A.No. 1141 of 2021

¶21

¶22

	POOTHOOTT HOUSE, CHAKKARAPADAM P.O., PERINJANAM, THRISSUR - 680 686.
3	SAMVRUTHA K.S., AGED 16 YEARS D/O.SUMI SUJITH, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SUMI SUJITH, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.SUJITH K.S., KUDILINGAL HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI P.O., THRISSUR - 680 122.
4	SANJANA K.S., AGED 16 YEARS D/O.VIBINA SELVARAJ, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER VIBINA SELVARAJ, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.SELVARAJ M.S., MULLASSERY HOUSE, PADIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 688.
5	E.M. ANENASS, AGED 16 YEARS S/O.RASMY, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER RASMY, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.E.VMANIKANDAN, ETTATH HOUSE, CHAKKARAPADAM P.O., PERINJANAM, THRISSUR - 680 686.
6	ANANYA, AGED 16 YEARS D/O.UNNIRAJ, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER UNNIRAJ, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAKAVU, KOOLIMUTTAM P.O., THRISSUR - 680 691.
7	ATHYUJA, AGED 16 YEARS D/O.SIMNA SUJITH, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SUJITH K.V., KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAKAVU, KOOLIMUTTAM P.O., THRISSUR - 680 691.
8	M.S. ABHINAND, AGED 16 YEARS S/O.SASIDHARAN, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER SADIDHARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ANDU, MANKARA HOUSE, P.O.EDAVILANGU, KODUNGALLUR - 680 671, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
9	ADITHYA K.U., AGED 16 YEARS D/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, KUNJAINI, P.O.EDAVILANGU, THRISSUR - 680 671.
10	APARNAV K.S., AGED 16 YEARS S/O.SUDHEERAN K.S., REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER SUDHEERAN K.S., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, KOKKUVAYIL HOUSE, NEAR KOTTIKKAL TEMPLE,

¶23

W.A.No. 1141 of 2021

¶24

¶25

AZHIKODE, THRISSUR - 680 666.

¶26

11	ARSHA P.V., AGED 16 YEARS
	D/O.VINOD P.V., REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER VINOD P.V., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN P.R., POTHEZHATH HOUSE, AZHIKODE, THRISSUR - 680 666.
12	ARYAN O.S.,AGED 16 YEARS S/O.SHYLAN O.G., REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER SAHYLAN O.G., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, OLLASSERY HOUSE, EDAVILANGU, THRISSUR - 680 671.
13	ASWINI M.B., AGED 16 YEARS D/O.BABU M.B., REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER BABU M.B., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN M.T., MELEZHATHU HOUSE, EDAVILANGU, THRISSUR - 680 671.
14	ASWIN KRISHNA C.M., AGED 16 YEARS S/O.C.K.MANOJ, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER MANOJ, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN C.V., CHITTEZHATH HOUSE, EDAVILANGU, THRISSUR - 680 671.
15	A.U. AVANTHIKA, AGED 16 YEARS D/O.UNNIKRISHNAN A.A., REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER UNNIKRISHNAN A.A., AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.A.K.AYYAPPAKUTTY, AYINIPULLY HOUSE, P.VEMBALLUR, THRISSUR - 680 671.
16	DEVANANDA M.S.,AGED 16 YEARS D/O.SANTHOSH M.V., REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SANTHOSH M.V., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN M.K., MANAKKATTUPADI HOUSE, EDAVILANGU, THRISSUR - 680 671.
17	HARININANDA M.S., AGED 16 YEARS D/O.BEENA M.B., REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER BEENA M.B., AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.SHINOD M.V., MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.VEMBALLUR, THRISSUR - 680 671.
18	JYOTHIKA M.H., AGED 16 YEARS D/O.HARIDAS M.A., REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER HARIDAS M.A, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ANDU, MANKARA HOUSE, EDAVILANGU, THRISSUR - 680 671.
19	SANIA R.S., AGED 16 YEARS D/O.SANTHOSH R.B., REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER

¶27

W.A.No. 1141 of 2021

¶28

¶29

	SANTHOSH R.B., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, RAMANKULATH HOUSE, NEAR KRISHIBHAVAN, EDAVILANGU, THRISSUR - 680 671.
20	SREELAKSHMI P.S., AGED 16 YEARS D/O.SURESH KUMAR P.K., REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SURESH KUMAR P.K., AGED 48, S/O.KUMARAN P.T., PARAKOT HOUSE, EDAVILANDU, THRISSUR - 680 671.
21	SOORAJ M.S., AGED 16 YEARS S/O.SURESH, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER SURESH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.SURESH M.T., MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AZHIKODE, THRISSUR - 680 666.
22	SWAROOP KRISHNA, AGED 16 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN E.K., REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER KRISHNAN E.K., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUTTAN E.A., EDAKKUNNI HOUSE, PANAYAMPADAM, P.O.THALORE - 680 306, THRISSUR.
23	SREEHARI P.S., AGED 16 YEARS S/O.SREENIVASAN P.B., REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER SREENIVASAN P.B., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.BALAN P.S., PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE, ST.THOMAS NAGAR, PERUVAMKULANGARA, P.O., OLLUR - 680 306, THRISSUR.
24	SREEDEVI P.S., AGED 16 YEARS D/O.SREESANKAR P.B., REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SREESANKAR P.B., AGED 48 YEARS, PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE, PERUVAMKULANGARA, P.O.OLLUR - 680 306, THRISSUR.
25	KRISHNAPRIYA P.S.,AGED 16 YEARS D/O.SAJEEV P.V., REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SAJEEV P.V., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN RAMANKUTTY, PULLANIKKAL HOUSE, KATTUKUZHI HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY, OLLUR - 680 306, THRISSUR.
26	HARIKRISHNA P.S., AGED 16 YEARS S/O.SURENDRAN P.V., REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER SURENDRAN P.V., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN P.K., PATHAZHAKKADAN HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA P.O., OLLUR - 680 306.
27	NIRANJAN M., AGED 16 YEARS

¶30

W.A.No. 1141 of 2021

¶31

¶32

S/O.PRAJEETHA K., REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER PRAJEETHA K., D/O.GOPI K., KANDENKAVVIL HOUSE, CHOOLISSERY P.O., KOLANGATTUKARA (VIA), THRISSUR - 680 541.

¶33

28 VASUDEV C.S., AGED 16 YEARS S/O.SANTHOSH C.K., REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER SANTHOSH C.K., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.C.R.KUTTAN, CHERULIAVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHERUVATHERY, CHEVOOR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 027. 29 SANJALI KRISHNA K.U., AGED 16 YEARS D/O.UNNIKRISHNAN K.C., REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER UNNIKRISHNAN K.C., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, KAKKARA HOUSE, P.O.EDAVILANGU - 680 671, THRISSUR. 30 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OPEN SCHOOLING, REGIONAL CENTRE, 6TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036.

¶34

OTHER PRESENT:

¶35

SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN. SC ADV.RENJITH G.

¶36

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

W.A.No. 1141 of 2021

¶38

¶39

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ

¶40

W.A.No. 1141 of 2021

¶41

Dated this the 9^th day of September, 2021

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶44

This Writ Appeal is preferred against an interim order dated 27.08.2021 in WP(C)No.17312 of 2021, that was filed by students, who had completed their Secondary Schooling through the National Institute of Open Schooling, and who were aggrieved by a condition in Ext.P1 order of the State Government making the NIOS qualification an equivalent qualification to SSLC only if the applicant proved that he/she was more than 17 years of age. The learned Single Judge found, prima facie , that the said stipulation in Ext.P1 order was discriminatory in nature and hence, directed the respondents to accept the online application filed by the writ petitioners for admission to the Higher Secondary Courses without insisting on the equivalency certificate as stipulated in Ext.P11 prospectus, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall produce the equivalency certificate as ordered by the Court.

¶45

W.A.No. 1141 of 2021

¶46

¶47

In the appeal before us it is the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the insistence by the Government, on an NIOC qualified applicant being above 17 years of age for obtaining an equivalency certificate, was based on the rationale that, while ordinarily the students who undergo secondary education through the National Institute of Open Schooling are drop-outs from regular schools, it was found that students who could have attended regular schools were taking advantage of the diluted standards under the National Institute of Open School curriculum and securing admission to Higher Secondary Courses in the State. The contention therefore is that, the stipulation in Ext.P1 as regards minimum age of 17 years for obtaining an equivalency certificate is based on a sound policy and ought not to have been interfered with by the learned single judge.

¶48

On a consideration of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, we are prima facie , inclined to agree with the observations of the learned Single Judge that the clause aforementioned in Ext.P1 order is discriminatory in nature. We find this to be more so because the other clauses in Ext.P1 , dealing with the equivalency certificate in respect of students undergoing secondary education through the National Institute of Open Schooling, clearly indicate that, subject to satisfying certain

¶49

W.A.No. 1141 of 2021

¶50

¶51

conditions, the secondary course under the NIOS can be deemed as equivalent to the SSLC course. Viewed against the said clauses, the clause stipulating an age limit seems to us to be an aberration. Under the said circumstances, and without making any further observations on the merits of the case, we dismiss the appeal against the impugned interim order of the learned Single Judge. Taking note of the urgency expressed by the learned counsel, however, we request the learned Single Judge to consider disposing the writ petition itself on an early date taking note of the fact that admissions to the Plus 2 course are currently underway in the State.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE

¶57

dlk 9.9.2021

The State of Kerala, v. Anjana K.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala, v. Anjana K.A.

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

V.Sasidharan, Vs Union of India

State of Kerala Vs Geethu R.Prasad

State of Kerala Vs Reshma Salim

Dr.K.D.Prathapan Vs Kerala Agricultural University

Travancore Devaswom Board, Vs R. Kishor

W. Vimala Vs State of Kerala