High Court Kerala High Court

K.K.Harsha Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.K.Harsha Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21836 of 2004(Y)


1. K.K.HARSHA KUMAR, PRESIDENT, PARENT
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY

3. THE HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGHER

4. PRINCIPAL GOVERNEMNT HIGHER SECONDARY'

5. V.ASHOKAN, CHANDAKKADAVU, ANCHALUMMOODU,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :18/08/2010

 O R D E R
                  C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

                  ------------------------------
                W.P.(C).No.21836 of 2004
                  ------------------------------

        Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010


                      J U D G M E N T

———————-

1. Petitioner claims to be President of the

Parents Teachers Association of Govt. Higher Secondary

School, Anchalummoodu in Kollam District. Grievance

of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent who is the

Principal of the Higher Secondary School had

constituted a parallel PTA in the very same school.

According to the petitioner, there can only be one PTA

including Higher Secondary section. Hence the

petitioner is seeking declaration to the effect that the

Principal has no authority to constitute a separate PTA.

2. It is brought to my notice that the PTA in the

schools are constituted on the basis of instruction given

under Ext.P1, issued by the Director of Public

Instructions. It is noticed from Ext.P1 that the term of

office of the Parent Teachers Committee will be the

W.P.(C).21836/04 -2-

academic year concerned. The dispute in question pertains

to the year 2004. The PTA might have been re-constituted

on every year, after 2004. Therefore I am of the opinion

that the grievance voiced in the writ petition no more

survives for consideration.

3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition

has become infructuous. It is made clear that if there is any

further grievance surviving with respect to constitution of

PTA for the current year, the petitioner will be at liberty to

challenge the same.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

okb