IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 896 of 2010()
1. THE TRIBAL MISSION, REG.NO.ER 59/80,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :18/08/2010
O R D E R
C.R.
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &
P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 896 of 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The appellant is a charitable institution running a self-financed
school at Attappady which is a tribal area in Palakkad District. Sixty
per cent of the students in the appellant’s school are children of tribals
and members of the Scheduled Caste community. The school is an
English medium school with Hostel providing free food and
accommodation to the students. The school was started in the year
2001 and in the year 2003 appellant applied for recognition of the
school as a self-financed school in the unaided sector vide Ext.P1
application. Based on appellant’s application the Asst. Educational
Officer, Mannarkkad prepared Ext.P2 report and submitted the same to
the Deputy Director of Education who made Ext.P3 and forwarded the
same to the Secretary to Government, who in turn, referred it to the
Director of Public Instruction, the head of the Department. The
2
Director of Public Instruction vide Ext.P4 dated 30.12.2003
recommended to the Government for grant of recognition to the
appellant’s school as a self-financed school in the unaided sector.
However, the Government did not take any action in the matter, and
thereafter, the appellant approached this Court for direction to the
Government to consider the matter. This Court issued interim direction
to the Government to consider petitioner’s application for recognition.
It is to be noted that besides the recommendation made by the Director
of Public Instruction based on the inspection report by Asst.
Educational Officer forwarded by the Deputy Director of Education,
the appellant had produced Ext.P7 resolution passed by the Sholayoor
Grama Panchayath and Ext.P8 resolution passed by the Attappady
Block Panchayath requesting the Government to grant approval to the
appellant’s school. However, inspite of recommendation both by the
Educational authorities at all levels and request from the Grama
Panchayath and Block Panchayath, Government did not pass any
orders. This led to filing of WPC and Ext.P9 interim order was issued
by this Court directing the Government to consider recognition for
3
appellant’s school. However, Government vide Ext.P14 order rejected
the claim and therefore the appellant withdrew the Writ Petition that
was pending at that time, and filed the present Writ Petition which was
heard and disposed of by the learned single Judge along with 36 other
Writ Petitions.
2. The challenge in all the Writ Petitions was mainly against the
policy decision of the Government not to grant recognition for opening
up self-financed educational institutions. Even though appellant had
made a specific prayer for direction to grant recognition to the
appellant’s school based on documents produced, the learned single
Judge did not grant it and hence this Writ Appeal is filed. We have
heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Advocate General
appearing for the respondents.
3. We do not think there is any need to consider the findings and
observations of the learned single Judge pertaining to the policy of the
Government that was under challenge in the batch cases. This is
because after hearing both sides and after going through the records
produced, we felt that appellant has made out a case to interfere with
4
Ext.P14 order issued by the Government and they are eligible to get
recognition for their School in the self-financed (unaided) sector
consistent with Government policy. Before proceeding to consider the
correctness of Ext.P14 order, we have to refer to the peculiar features
of the appellant’s school which are the following:
1. Appellant’s is an English medium school in a remote
tribal area and admittedly there is no English medium
school even in the neighbouring villages and two schools
functioning in the neighbouring villages are Malayalam and
Tamil medium schools.
2. Appellant is a charitable institution running the school by
providing teaching and accommodation facility free of cost
mainly to children of tribals and members of Scheduled
Caste community
3. All the educational authorities, including the Head of the
Department, namely, the Director of Public Instruction,
recommended appellant’s school’s eligibility for recognition
as a school in the unaided sector.
4. In terms of the requirement of the Govt. orders for
recognition, the local authorities, namely, Grama
Panchayath and Block Panchayath, have both
recommended to the Government for granting recognition
to the appellant’s school.
5. The photographs produced by the appellant before us
show the infrastructure facilities available in the school
including play ground which prima facie establish that the
school is very well established and the appellant as a5
charitable institution is doing service to the community by
providing free education, including free accommodation
and food to the tribal children and members of the
Scheduled Caste community.
6. The educational authorities after inspection noticed that
the School has not only infrastructural, but all the
instructional facilities, like required number of teachers,
library, computer centre, etc.
7. Recognition sought from Government does not involve
any financial commitment for Govt. because appellant’s is a
self-financed institution (unaided school).
4. On going through Ext.P14 order issued by the Government,
which is the order declining recognition to appellant’s school, we notice
that denial of recognition is for the reason that the Government
apprehends fall in number of divisions in the neighbouring three
schools, one being GTUPS, Mattathukkad. However, in Ext.P14 itself
it is stated that all these schools are either Tamil or Malayalam medium
and none of the schools is an English medium school, whereas the
appellant’s school is an English medium school. It is admitted in
Ext.P14 that appellant’s school has infrastructure facility and the
educational authority, namely, the Asst. Educational Officer, who
conducted inspection, noticed that the school has all the infrastructure
6
and instructional facilities including computer centre, library and staff
strength. In fact, as late as on 8.10.2007 and 9.11.2007 the District
Educational Officer inspected the school and recorded vide Exts. P11
and P12 copies of registers produced by the appellant in the WPC that
the appellant’s school has all the facilities entitling it for recognition.
We are of the view that the apprehension of the Government that there
would be fall in number of students and divisions in the schools in the
neighbouring villages, if recognition is granted to the appellant’s
school, is without any basis because appellant’s school is an English
medium school whereas those schools in the neighbouring villages are
either Tamil medium or Malayalam medium schools. Further it is to be
noted that appellant’s school is a residential school and it provides free
accommodation to the children of tribals and members of the
Scheduled Caste community and the poor people in the area. Free
accommodation to students besides free education is certainly an
incentive to the poor people particularly tribals to send their children to
School and get them educated. We are of the view that if Government
could not give free education to the students from the age of six to
7
fourteen, in terms of Article 21A of the Constitution of India, they
should at least encourage others to provide it and in this regard all what
is required is only recognition being granted by the Government, which
is only a facility to conduct examination in the school. While granting
recognition, Government does not make any financial commitment to
the appellant’s school as it is a self-financed school, that too is run with
it’s own fund without collecting any charges from the students.
Therefore, in our view, the policy of the Government is against public
interest and against the scheme of Constitution to provide free
education to students upto the age of 14.
5. The next ground argued by the Advocate General is that
according to Government’s policy, recognition should be granted to
schools in terms of Rule 2 and 2A of Chapter V of the Kerala
Education Rules. Under the scheme of these rules, it is for the
Government to first conduct study about educational requirements in
the State and identify the areas where schools have to be opened. It is
only against Government’s notification inviting applications that the
schools are supposed to make application for opening of new schools.
8
Admittedly Government conducted study and Ext.P6 notification was
issued on 13.6.2007 identifying Malappuram, Kasaragod, Kozhikode,
Kannur and Wayanad Districts as Districts where educational
backwardness of Muslim community persists. Later, Palakkad District
in which appellant’s school is located is also brought within the list of
educationally backward Districts. Revised notification was issued as
G.O.(Rt.) No. 85/09 dated 27.2.2009 including Palakkad District also
as educationally backward District. Pursuant to the direction issued by
the Government the Director of Public Instruction on 24.5.2010
identified 8 Panchayaths in Palakkad District where educational
backwardness exists. Even though appellant’s school is located in the
Tribal area and Grama Panchayath and Block Panchayath
recommended the need to give recognition to the appellant’s school,
Government has not identified Attappady strs as one wanting a new
school. We notice that these Government orders are issued in 2007 and
2009 whereas the appellant’s application is pending from 2003 onwards
and on which based on the norms, all the educational authorities
recommended recognition to the appellant’s school. The school has
9
around 300 students and has classes from Std. I to X and the Xth Std.
students will appear for the Examination in March, 2011. The norms
for recognition vide Ext. P6, G.O.(P) No. 107/07/G.Edn. dated
13.6.2007 are the following:
1. As a policy, unaided recognized schools need not be
given recognition. It may be declared that unaided schools
will not be given recognition in future.
2. For those schools functioning in the State now whether
they may be considered for recognition at all, a policy
decision may be taken at Government level.
3. Since many of them may be answering to the demand for
English Medium and better quality education in the rural
areas, those having facilities as per Kerala Education Rules
and maintaining better academic standards may be
considered for recognition, if the local bodies also
recommend recognition of a school acknowledging the
need for such a school in the local body’s jurisdiction.
Further steps can be as in the Chapter V, Kerala Education
Rules, which also envisages the setting up of recognised
schools.
It is to be seen that condition No. 3 states that local bodies have a say in
regard to recognition of an English Medium School in rural areas. The
appellant’s school squarely satisfies the above condition prescribed by
the Government because it is located in a remote village area that too in
10
a tribal area and both the Grama Panchayath and Block Panchayath
have in their resolutions forwarded to the Government stated that there
is no other English Medium school in the area and therefore for the
benefit of the local people appellant’s school should be granted
recognition. We therefore feel that denial of recognition to appellant’s
school merely because the same may lead to fall in divisions in the
neighbouring schools is untenable.
6. The conceded policy of the Government is to promote
education that too in areas where there is educational and economic
backwardness. During this academic year, 178 Higher Secondary
Schools are granted in the aided sector and the estimated annual
expenditure of the State for each school is stated to be Rs. 30 lakhs.
We do not know why the Government wants to stand in the way of
private educational agency rendering free education to poor and down-
trodden in rural areas where the minimum that they are demanding is
only recognition which does not involve any financial commitment for
the State. Intrinsic merit of the appellant’s school is evident from the
fact that even in their unrecognised school, as many as 300 set of
11
parents have sent their children for education which obviously means
that they expect Govt. to grant recognition to the School. The local
bodies endorsed the credibility of the appellant’s school and the need
for recognition. We therefore see no reason why the Government
should not grant recognition to the appellant’s school which was started
9 years back and is admittedly running very well.
We therefore allow the Writ Appeal by modifying the judgment
of the learned single Judge as regards the observations and findings in
the appellant’s Writ Petition, that is, WPC 3181 of 2008 and allow the
WPC by vacating Ext.P14 order and by directing the Government to
grant recognition to the appellant’s school as unaided self-financed
English Medium School to run classes from I to X from the academic
year 2010-11 onwards.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
(P.S. GOPINATHAN)
Judge.
kk
12