IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23411 of 2010(B)
1. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
6. JON ALEXANDER.A. UPSA,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :13/08/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO.23411 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the Corporate Manager of Devamatha Corporate
Educational Agency of CMI Schools. This Writ Petition has been filed
challenging Exts.P8 and P11 and also with a further prayer to issue a writ
of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointments
of Headmasters in St.Joseph’s H.S.S, Pavaratty, St.Aloysious H.S,
Elthuruthu and Little Flower L.P.School Pavaratty. Ext.P8 is a letter of the
first respondent requiring the petitioner to produce a copy of the order
recognising minority status of the schools under the said educational
agency. The aforesaid institutions belong to Devamatha Corporate
Educational Agency of CMI Schools. As per Ext.P11, the second
respondent required the petitioner to produce certificate from the National
Commission for Minority Institutions. It is contended that the said order
was issued at the instance of the sixth respondent.
2. In view of the order I propose to pass in this Writ petition I
think notice need not be issued to the sixth respondent at this stage. The
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to my attention
paragraph 3 of Ext.P3 judgment wherein it is stated: “It is admitted that
W.P.(C) NO.23411/2010 2
the school concerned is a minority educational institution”. The sixth
respondent herein was the petitioner therein and the school concerned was
one among the schools under the Devamatha Corporate Educational
Agency of CMI Schools. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with a
direction to the second respondent herein to consider Ext.P7 appeal
referred to therein after hearing the sixth respondent and the petitioner
herein. Ext.P4 is the order passed therein by the second respondent herein.
The argument of the petitioner regarding the minority status of the
institutions has been upheld thereunder, it is submitted. Subsequently, the
petition filed by the sixth respondent on 11.11.2008 came up for
consideration before the Additional Director (Academic) Directorate of
Public Instruction. As per Ext.P5 order dated 9.2.2009, the said petition
dated 11.11.2008 was rejected. A perusal of the same would reveal that
based on Ext.P2 order No.D.Dis/86284/91/ET4 dated 7.7.1992 it was held
that the management has the right to appoint any person as Headmaster
ignoring seniority in the feeder category as the management is a minority
institution. The contention of the petitioner is that all the aforesaid
documents were produced before the first and second respondents. It was
without looking into the said documents that Ext.P8 and P11 letters have
been issued to the petitioner requiring him to produce the certificate from
the National Commission for Minority Institutions.
W.P.(C) NO.23411/2010 3
3. Obviously, certain documents viz., Ext.P2 order, Ext.P3
judgment of this court and Ext.P5 were already produced before
respondents 1 and 2. Since such documents are produced before
respondents 1 and 2, they have a bounden duty to consider the said
documents and pass orders on the petitions, if any, submitted by the sixth
respondent with notice to the sixth respondent. They cannot be heard to
contend that the minority status of the aforesaid schools belonging to the
petitioner would be recognised only if a certificate from the National
Commission for Minority Institutions is produced. The respondents 1 and
2 are therefore, directed to consider the question of approval of
appointments of management of the petitioner on merits, after perusing the
documents already produced by the petitioner before them. If the sixth
respondent has raised any objection with respect to the appointment of
Headmasters in the said schools, he shall also be afforded with an
opportunity before taking decision on the question of their approval. This
shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
W.P.(C) NO.23411/2010 4
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C). NO. /2010
JUDGMENT
June, 2010
W.P.(C) NO.23411/2010 5