IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA No. 2791 of 2007() 1. SRI.VIDYADHIRAJA MODEL TEACHERS ... Petitioner 2. SREE NARAYANA GURU MEMORIAL TEACHER 3. THE MALABAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ... Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH Dated :26/11/2007 O R D E R H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No. 2791 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of November, 2007. JUDGMENT
Appellants were petitioners before the learned Single Judge in W.P.
(C) 30533 of 2007. In the said writ petition, they have called in question Ext.P3
Circular issued by the Director of Public Instructions dated 6.6.2007. By the said
Circular, the Director had made known to the petitioners and persons similarly
situated that the eligibility criteria for admission to the T.T.C. Course in their
Schools and Colleges should be 50% marks.
2. Students, who are admitted to some of the courses, had approached this court
in W.P.(C) No.21880 of 2007. A learned Single Judge of this court by his order
dated 21st August, 2007 had rejected the writ petition, but had only directed the
State Government to make a request to NCTE to relax the conditions prescribed
in the regulations.
3. After the disposal of the writ petition, now the
petitioners/educational institutions, have questioned the very same Ext.P3 circular
issued by the Director of Public Instructions on various grounds.
4. The learned Single Judge on 12th November, 2007 has disposed
of the writ petition on the ground that the issue raised by the petitioners is fully
covered by the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 21880 of 2007,
which has been confirmed by a Division Bench of this court. The learned Single
W.A. 2791/2007. 2
Judge has also noticed that pursuant to the direction issued by this court in W.P.(C)
21880 of 2007, the State Government has passed an order dated 1.11.2007. In view of
all this, the learned Single Judge, has rejected the writ petition.
5. We cannot find fault with the learned Judge if he follows earlier
decision of this Court, if the facts and questions of law involved are identical.
Therefore, we need not have to interfere with the order passed. Secondly, if for any
reason, the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the State Government
dated 1.11.2007, they have to file separate writ petition questioning the correctness or
otherwise of the decision of the State Government.
6. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.