IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33494 of 2007(K)
1. THE MANAGER, N.L.P.SCHOOL, MANALI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.33494/2007
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P19, an
order passed by the Government rejecting the revision filed
by the petitioner against the staff fixation orders for the
years 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 in respect of the School of
which the petitioner is the Manager.
2. Counsel for the petitioner takes exception to the
findings in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the impugned order.
3. In paragraph 6, it has been held that, after
excluding 6 pupils, whose admission is stated to be bogus,
the actual roll strength in the 2nd standard for the year
2004-05 comes to only 49, for which only one class division
is admissible. In so far as this finding is concerned, counsel
for the petitioner refers to me the roll strength, verified
WP(c).No.33494/07 2
strength and effective strength of standard-II mentioned in
paragraph 2, which is in contradiction with the figures as
found in paragraph 6 referred to above. Though, in this
behalf specific pleadings have been raised in the writ
petition, no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming in the
counter affidavit. This contradiction itself calls for
interference with the findings in paragraph 6.
The next objection of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is regarding the exception taken by the
Government in regard to the ten students who were
admitted based on the declaration of their date of birth
made by their parents. It would appear that the
Government has been taking the view that only on the basis
of the birth certificates could admissions be granted. This is
opposed to the statutory provisions contained in Chapter VI
Rule 1 of KER. This court has taken the view in the
judgments in WP(c).Nos. 9142/06 and 33964/06 that so
long as Chapter VI Rule 1 of KER provides that in the
WP(c).No.33494/07 3
absence of birth certificate it is permissible to admit
students acting upon the declaration made by the parents,
the admissions cannot be interfered with for the mere
reason that the same has been granted accepting the
declaration made by the petitioner. Therefore for that
reason also Ext.P19 deserves to be set aside and I do so.
The matter shall be reconsidered by the first respondent
with notice to the petitioner. This shall be done as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 months
from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).No.33494/07 4