IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31536 of 2010(N)
1. THE MANAGER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
6. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :02/11/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.31536 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Manager of St.Joseph’s L.P. School,
Karayamparambu. The school is a Pre KER School. It is stated
that the school was established and administered by a Christian
Religious Minority under the St. Joseph’s Catholic Church of the
Arch Diocese of Ernakulam – Angamaly. The school is an
‘uneconomic’ school. During 2009-2010, the total strength of the
students in classes 1 to 4 was 47. It is stated that the students’
strength for 2010-2011 is only 19.
2. The school is situated on the side of the National
Highway. The total extent of the school compound was 22.362
cents in survey No.260/7 of Karukutty Village. Out of this extent,
an extent of 10.872 cents was acquired for widening the National
Highway. A major portion of the building was demolished.
WPC No.31536/2010 2
3. According to the petitioner, it is not possible to
continue the school in the remaining portion. According to him,
there is no educational need to continue the school. The
petitioner expressed his desire to close down the school by
Exhibit P3 communication addressed to the Assistant
Educational Officer with copy to the Director of Public
Instruction, Deputy Director of Education and District
Educational Officer. Exhibit P4 letter dated 19.10.2009 was
issued by the Director of Public Instruction to the Government,
taking into account Exhibit P3 submitted by the petitioner as
well. In Exhibit P4, the Director of Public Instruction pointed out
that the classes cannot be conducted in the remaining portion of
the school. The students studying in the school belong to
economically weaker sections of the society. In the vicinity,
there are no other schools to accommodate these students.
According to the Director of Public Instruction, a two storied
building can be constructed in the remaining portion of the land,
so that the school can be retained.
4. On receipt of the copy of Exhibit P4, the petitioner
WPC No.31536/2010 3
sent a detailed representation dated 6th November, 2009 to the
Government. The petitioner requested that the students may be
allowed to continue their studies in the nearby school.
According to the petitioner, it is not feasible to construct a
school building in the remaining portion of the property left after
acquisition.
5. The Tahsildar, Aluva sent Exhibit P10 report dated
9.6.2010 to the District Collector, Ernakulam stating that the
school building should be demolished. The report indicates that
the Headmistress was of the view that the school should be
retained in the same place. The Tahsildar suggested admission
of the students in the nearby school and demolition of the old
building.
6. As per Exhibit P11 communication dated 17.6.2010,
the Assistant Educational Officer directed the petitioner to stop
the functioning of the school in the old building and to find out
alternate accommodation. The petitioner replied as per Exhibit
P12 dated 21.6.2010 stating that alternative accommodation can
WPC No.31536/2010 4
be arranged by taking a building on rent for a period of one year
ending with 31st March, 2011.
7. As per Exhibit P13 dated 28.6.2010, the District
Educational Officer directed the Manager to continue the classes
in the alternative accommodation. It is stated that a building
was taken on rent and the school is functioning in that rented
building.
8. While so, the Government passed Exhibit P17 order
dated 11.8.2010 directing the petitioner to construct building
in the remaining portion of the land to accommodate four class
rooms with the required facilities. Exhibit P17 was addressed to
the Director of Public Instruction to issue appropriate directions
to the Manager. It is also stated in Exhibit P17 that if the
direction is not complied with within six months, the school
would be taken over by the Government.
9. Exhibit P17 is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
There is also a prayer to declare that the petitioner is entitled to
WPC No.31536/2010 5
close down the school.
10. One of the main grievance put forward by the
petitioner is that he was not heard by the Government before
passing Exhibit P17 order. The detailed representation
submitted by him was also not considered. The report submitted
by the Tahsildar was also not taken note of. According to the
petitioner, all the affected parties should have been heard and a
just and proper decision should have been taken by the
Government in the matter.
11. Exhibit P17 is cryptic. There is no indication in
Exhibit P17 that the Government took into account the
representation submitted by the petitioner, the report made by
the Tahsildar and the Director of Public Instruction and all that
relevant facts. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of
being heard. The Parent Teachers Association and the
Headmistress were also not heard.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it
WPC No.31536/2010 6
would be just and proper to direct the Government to consider
the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard
to all the parties and taking note of all the relevant facts
including the report submitted by the authorities. The views of
the Parent Teachers Association and the teachers represented by
the Headmistress would also be taken note of by the
Government.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, Exhibit P17 is quashed.
The Government shall consider the matter afresh, after affording
an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner (Manager), the
Parent Teachers Association, the teachers represented by the
Headmistress and any other interested parties and shall pass a
considered order after taking note of the ground realities, the
future of the students and the interests of the teachers and the
Manager. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the contentions put forward by the petitioner.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and
certified copy of the judgment before the Government
(Respondent No.6).
WPC No.31536/2010 7
14. Though Ext.P17 order is quashed and the matter is
directed to be considered afresh, it is submitted by the petitioner
that as per Exts.P3 and P16 the Manager had expressed his
intention to close down the School. Exts.P3 and P16 shall be
considered by the Director of Public Instruction. The Director of
Public Instruction has to dispose of the matter in the light of
Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act and Rule 24 of Chapter
V of the Kerala Education Rules. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that if the matter is decided in favour of the
petitioner by the Director of Public Instruction, it is not
necessary to consider the matter afresh by the Government as a
consequence of quashing Ext.P17. The submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is correct.
15. Therefore, as a first step, Exts.P3 and P16
applications submitted by the petitioner are to be considered by
the Director of Public Instruction. The Director of Public
Instruction shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner and take appropriate decision in the matter. If the
decision of the Director of Public Instruction is in favour of the
WPC No.31536/2010 8
petitioner, it is not necessary for the Government to consider the
question involved in Ext.P17 order and which was directed to be
considered afresh as per this judgment. On the other hand, if the
order to be passed by the Director of Public Instruction goes
against the petitioner, the Government will have to consider the
matter afresh consequent on the quashing of Ext.P17 as
aforesaid.
16. It is submitted that the School was commenced 92
years back as a ‘Kudipallikkoodam’. The ‘Kudipallikkoodam’ was
established by the Church. It is true that at present there are
only 19 students in the School. The Manager will also take into
account the fact that the School was established about a century
ago and shall explore the possibilities of getting an alternate
accommodation in a different place, though not a place as
important as the place in which the School was established, so
that the students belonging to the poorer sections can continue
their studies. I have expressed this not as a ground for
denying the rights which the Manager has, but only as a desire
WPC No.31536/2010 9
to continue the School which was established about a century
ago.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.T.SANKARAN
JUDGE
csl