IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35932 of 2003(C)
1. CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OF SCHOOLS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (D.P.I),
3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (D.E.O.),
For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/07/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 35932 OF 2003
............................................................................
Dated this the 9th July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:
“(a) To declare that the directions in exhs.P-12 & P-16 that the
appointments in question can be approved only upto 31-3-2003
and that the posts are abolished, etc., are illegal, arbitrary and
ultra-vires and to declare that the staff of the Petitioner’s High
School are entitled to get salary from 1-4-2003 onwards.
(b) to call for the records leading to exhs. P-12 & P-16 and to
issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or
direction to quash exh. P-12 and to quash exh.P-16 to the extent
it directs the abolition of the posts sanctioned after 1999-2000.
(c) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
order or direction commanding the respondents to pay salary to
the Petitioner’s staff mentioned in exhs.P-12 & P-15, from 1-4-
2003 onwards.
(d) To declare that the staff of the Petitioner School are legally
entitled to continue in service in the posts held by them, so long
as the posts are admissible as per the statutory provisions in the
Kerala Education Rules and that separate sanction from the
Govt. on a year to year basis is not required in this regard and to
issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or
direction directing the respondents not to insist for separate
sanction from Govt. on a year to year basis for their continuance
in service and their entitlement for salary, so long as the posts
held by them are admissible as per the rules.
(e) to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
W.P.(C) No. 35932 OF 2003
2
order or direction directing the respondents to allow the
admissible number of class divisions and posts to the FMHS,
Chinnakanal as per the provisions of the KER from 1997-98
onwards.
(f) to declare that the conditions imposed in exh.P-13 cannot
detrimentally affect the bifurcation of the Petitioner’s Schools
ordered as per exh.P-3 and to issue a Writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the
respondents to treat the FMHS, Chinnakanal as a bifurcated unit
permanently.
(g) in the alternative that prayer (f) above is not granted, then to
issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or
direction directing the respondents to treat the FMHS,
Chinnakanal and the FMLPS, Chinnakanal as a single unit and
appropriate directions in this regard may be issued to the
respondents.
(h) to issue any other appropriate Writ, order or direction as this
Honourable Court may deem fit to grant in the ends of justice
and equity. ”
2. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.6571 of 2008 with the following prayer:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue
directions to direct the 1st respondent to take final decision, in
pursuance of the hearing conducted on 17.06.2006, on the
issue as to whether the petitioner’s school (Fathima Matha High
School, Chinnackanal, Idukki District) is to be granted final
bifurcation or is to be treated as a single unit, within one month
and that the pendency of WP(C) 28931/03, shall not preclude
the 1st respondent from taking the aforesaid decision, pending
final disposal of the above WP. ”
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Writ Petition
W.P.(C) No. 35932 OF 2003
3
itself can be disposed of if the prayer in I.A.No.6571 of 2008 is allowed.
4. Learned Government Pleader expressed a doubt as to whether the same
Secretary who is said to have heard the matter would be able to dispose of the matter
finally. In that context, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
no objection if the matter is disposed of by another Secretary and that the petitioner
waives the right for personal hearing.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer in I.A.No. 6571 of 2008 is
allowed and the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the prayer so allowed. The first
respondent shall pass orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgment.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk