IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
WA NO. 1138 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2022 IN WP(C) 25095/2022 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):
P.GEORGE VARGHESE
AGED 56 YEARS
MANAGER, SAINT IGNATIUS VHSS, KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT - 682 315.
BY ADVS.
N.RAGHURAJ
SAYUJYA
VIVEK MENON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD - 682 030.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
5 PETER N. CHACKO,
NEDUMATTATHIL HOUSE, CHETHIKKODE P.O., KANJIRAMATTOM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 315.
SRI SAIGI JACOB PALATTY-SR.GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2022,
ALONG WITH WP(C) 25095/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 25095 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
P. GEORGE VARGHESE
AGED 56 YEARS
MANAGER, SAINT IGNATIUS VHSS, KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT - 682 315.
BY ADVS.
P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SAYUJYA
VIVEK MENON
N.RAGHURAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
3 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD - 682 030.
4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
5 PETER N. CHACKO,
NEDUMATTATHIL HOUSE, CHETHIKKODE P.O., KANJIRAMATTOM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 315.
BY ADVS.
Martin Jose
P.PRIJITH
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
R.GITHESH
AJAY BEN JOSE
MANJUNATH MENON
SACHIN JACOB AMBAT
ANNA LINDA V.J
HARIKRISHNAN S.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1138/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 & WA No.1138 of 2022
1
ALEXANDER THOMAS & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
==================
WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 &
WA No.1138 of 2022
(arising out of the order dated 05.08.2022 in WP(C) No.25095 of 2022)
==================
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
Since the afore mentioned WA arises out of the impugned interim order rendered on 05.08.2022 in the afore captioned Writ Petition (Civil) WP(C) No.25095/2022, these cases are disposed of on the basis of a common judgment.
WP(C) No.25095/2022
2. The case projected in the above Writ proceedings are broadly as follows:
"The petitioner is the Manager of St. Ignatius Vocational & Higher Secondary School, Kanjiramattom ("the School" for short). The management of the School is vested in a Managing Committee elected by the Parishioners of the Church which elect the Manager of the School from among themselves. The constitution of the educational agency of the School and its management are governed by the provisions of the Bye-Laws/Constitution approved by the 3rd respondent vide Ext. P1 Order dated 10.10.1973. Ext. P1 bye laws interalia provide that the term of the Managing Committee shall be 5 years and that if a new Managing Committee is not elected even after the expiry of the term of the previous committee, the said committee can continue in office till an elected committee is duly constituted. The petitioner was first appointed as the Manager of the School in 2010 for a period of 5 years in terms of Ext. P1 bye laws, which was duly approved by the 4 respondent vide Ext. P2 order.
The 5th respondent, a rival claimant, unsuccessfully assailed the said order before all the statutory authorities and later before this Hon'ble Court. A new Managing Committee of the School was elected in 2015, which in turn elected the petitioner was WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 & WA No.1138 of 2022 2 again as the Manager for a further term of 5 years. As per Ext. P2 order the 4th respondent approved the appointment of the petitioner as the Manager. However, the DPI interfered with the said order which is stayed by-B the Hon'ble Court in W.P.
(c). No. 2719 of 2016. Since no elections were conducted thereafter, the petitioner and the Managing Committee whose term of office co-terminus, accordingly continued in officer by virtue of the provisions of Ext. P1 bye law, without any objection from the educational authorities. The petitioner's School is having 8 batches of Higher Secondary courses with an Intake of 400 students. As per Ext. P5 prospectus for Admission to the Higher Secondary courses in Aided/Government Schools, which bear the approval of the 1st respondent Government, 20% of the total seats in the Higher Secondary Courses in aided Schools, are set apart as management quota which could be filled up by respective managements from the list of students prepared by them. In terms of the said prospectus, the petitioner has selected students against the seats set apart as management quota in the Higher Secondary courses conducted in the Schools. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, he came across Ext. P7 notification issued by the 2nd respondent in the website of the Higher Secondary Department on 02.08.2022, whereby it is ordered that the management quota seats in the aided Schools with respect to which there are management disputes/court cases shall be converted as open merit seats. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has no authority in law to tinker with the provisions of Ext. P4 prospectus which is approved by the Government. Ext. P7 order is therefore, without jurisdiction. That apart through Ext. P7 order the 2nd respondent has taken away a vested right conferred by Ext. P7 to the aided School managements without notice and without affording an opportunity of being heard to them."
3. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:
"(i) To issue writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P7 and to quash the same.
(ii) to issue a writ of Mandamus or such other writ, direction or order declaring that Ext.P7 is without jurisdiction, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice.
(iii) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents not to interfere with the right of the petitioner to effect admission to the 20% Managment Quota seats in the Higher Secondary Courses in the St.Ignatius Vocational & Higher Secondary School, Kanjiramattom.
(iv) award to the petitioner the costs of these proceedings and;
(v) grant such other and furtherreliefs as are just, proper and necessary or may be prayed for."
WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 & WA No.1138 of 2022 3
4. The learned Single Judge has initially granted interim order dated 03.08.2022 in this WP(C), ordering that the enforcement of the impugned Ext.P7 order for merger of the management quota seats with the open merit quota seats shall be kept in abeyance till 05.08.2022. Later, when the case came up for consideration on 05.08.2022, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent State authorities that the allotment of seats pursuant to the merger ordered as per the impugned Ext.P7 order dated 01.08.2022 has already been completed on 03.08.2022, even before the copy of the initial interim order on 03.08.2022 was received by the respondent State authorities on 04.08.2022. On this basis, the learned Single Judge has vacated the interim order granted on 03.08.2022, on the premise that the impugned proceedings at Ext.P7 has already been enforced as against the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner has filed the afore captioned Writ Appeal, to impugn the interim order dated 05.08.2022 vacating the initial interim order granted on 03.08.2022. It has now been revealed that the allotment cum admission process in respect of the 20% management quota seats allotted to the school in question has not been completed and there are still vacancies. Hence, both the WA and the WP(C) has come up for consideration before us.
WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 & WA No.1138 of 2022 4
5. Heard Sri.P.Raveendran, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.N.Reghuraj, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 4. Though R-5, who is stated to be a rival claimant to the petitioner for the managership of the school, has been duly served, there is no appearance on his behalf, in spite of due service of notice on him by special messenger. Shri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Shri.P.Martin Jose, learned counsel has sought for impleadment of a third party, the said plea is seriously opposed. As the rival claimant (R-5) has not entered appearance despite notice and in view of the admitted stand of the respondent educational authorities in Ext.P-9 dt.16.3.2022 that the petitioner is continuing as Manager of the school by the operation of Clause 4(h) of Ext.P-1 bye-laws, we are not inclined to allow the third party impleadment. However, we have elaborately heard Shri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel and Shri.P.Martin Jose, learned counsel.
6. We have elaborately heard both sides. After conclusion of the submissions, we suggested to both sides that the mere factum of existence of management disputes by itself cannot be a ground to deny the facility of management quota seats to an aided school which is under WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 & WA No.1138 of 2022 5 a private management. The core reason is that the factum regarding the existence and reality that the school is an aided management school, does not get obliterated, merely because of pendency of management disputes. Hence we suggested that it is in the interest of both the rival factions that the right of the management and the community in question may be better subserved if it is ensured that some mechanism is evolved to avail the management quota seats in a reasonable manner. We also suggested that we are apprised that ordinarily the management quota seats can be filled up on the basis of the discretion of the management from amongst applicants who fulfill the minimum eligibility norms for getting admission for Plus Two course in terms of the prospectus. Hence, out of equitable considerations and also to effectuate public interest and to subserve the interest of the student community and also at the same time to ensure that the interest of the management to avail the management quota seats is fulfilled, that it may be better that the petitioner may sponsor the names of ten candidates for each vacancy in the management quota to the respondent DEO and it is for the respondent DEO to fill up the management quota seats from amongst such eligible and sponsored candidates, but purely on the basis of inter se merit to be determined on the basis of their SSLC marks as is otherwise WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 & WA No.1138 of 2022 6 done. Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.P.Martin Jose, learned Advocate has fairly submitted on the basis of instructions that their party would agree to such suggestion made by this Court, provided it is only for this year and provided further that the orders and directions of this Court shall not in any manner affect either the pending church disputes or the pending management disputes in other pending litigative proceedings either in the Civil Court or in writ proceedings etc. Sri. P.Raveendran, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.N.Reghuraj, appearing for the petitioner also does not appear to have serious objection to the said course of action proposed by us. But, it is pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that the admission process has reached almost the fag end and it may not be possible to get ten students for each vacancy, especially in courses which may not have much demand like Home Science. The official respondents also do not appear to have much serious objection to the course of action suggested by us in view of the aspects mentioned herein above. It is also pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that if this course of action is adopted by this Court, then all issues raised in this writ proceedings may be left open to be raised and decided on appropriate occasion if it is so warranted. So also, both Sri.P.Raveendran, learned Senior Counsel and Sri. WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 & WA No.1138 of 2022 7 S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel would insist that the directions and orders to be so passed by this Court, need not be taken as a precedent for next year and if any such issues arises, the same will have to be decided afresh and untrammeled and uninfluenced in any manner by the course of action adopted by us. The petitioner would also point out that this Court may order that the impugned Ext.P7 proceedings, to the limited extent it is directed against the petitioner's school, shall not apply as against it for this academic year. There will not be any serious issue regarding the said submission for the simple fact that Ext.P7 is made applicable only for the present academic year and the directions to be issued by us will certainly supersede or modify Ext.P7 to the limited extent, it is directed as against the school management in question. Coming to the facts of the case, it appears that the above school has 5 subjects at the Plus Two course level for admission to standard XI. The details are as follows:
(i) Altogether there are 180 seats sanctioned for Bio-Maths course (Biology-Mathematics combination).
Thus, the management quota seats, computed on the basis of 20%, comes to 36 seats. It is submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader, on the basis of factual WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 & WA No.1138 of 2022 8 instructions that all the 36 seats in Bio-Maths are now available for management quota.
(ii) 60 seats are altogether sanctioned for Bio- Home Science Course. So 12 seats are set apart in the 20% management quota seats. According to the official respondents that now only 3 seats are available.
(iii) For Maths-Computer Science course, altogether 120 seats have been sanctioned. Management quota seats allotted is 24 seats (20% of 120 seats). It is submitted on behalf of the official respondents that now 21 seats for this course are available.
(iv) For Humanities course, the total number of seats sanctioned is 60. Management quota seats will come to 12 seats computed at 20%. It is pointed out by the official respondents that 8 seats are now available.
(v) Further, that for Commerce subject, 60 seats have been sanctioned and management quota seats would be 12 seats (20% of 60 seats). Further the official respondents would submit that 7 seats are now available.
7. Sri. N.Reghuraj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 & WA No.1138 of 2022 9 would point out that the factual instruction, that could be ascertained from the Principal of the school is that more seats are available in the 20% management quota for each of these five courses than what has been now submitted on behalf of the official respondents. Per contra, learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that the said data relied on by the petitioner may not be fully accurate, inasmuch as the seats apportioned to SC/ST reservation quota and differently abled reservation quota have to be reckoned for computing outstanding vacancy, etc. The admissions are on the fag end of finalization and there is no necessity for us to adjudicate on these factual issues. However we would add a caveat that in case the petitioner has any case that there are more vacant seats to be filled up in the management quota than what has been now submitted before us by the official respondents, then the petitioner and the Principal may give the facts and figures in that regard before the 4 th respondent DEO, who may ascertain that and may take necessary action based on the actual factual aspects, which have been disclosed. While passing orders in this writ proceedings, for regulating admission for this year, we are of the firm view that out of equitable consideration and also for adherence to public interest, it would be only fair and right in exercise of our discretion that it is ordered that sufficient number of candidates is WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 & WA No.1138 of 2022 10 sponsored by the petitioner in the available vacancies in the management quota for each of the respective five courses, to the 4 th respondent DEO, who may thereafter select the eligible students in the management quota, purely on the basis of their inter se merit as disclosed in their SSLC marks. Thereafter, the respondent DEO may give the list of selected candidates in the management quota, to the principal of the aided Higher Secondary School concerned, who will ensure that such students selected by the DEO as above are given admission in the management quota. Accordingly, it is ordered that petitioner may sponsor 10 eligible students for each of the vacancies for each of the five courses mentioned above to the DEO along with the details of the applicants concerned as well as their marks in the SSLC examination alongwith the copies of the marksheet in the said examination etc, without any further delay. Thereafter, the 4th respondent DEO will ascertain the details and ensure that students are selected for admission in the above management quota vacancies for each of the five courses mentioned above without any further delay and instructions may be given by the 4th respondent DEO to the Principal concerned to give admission to the students. Thereupon, the Principal of the St.Ignatius Vocational and Higher Secondary School, Kanjiramattam, Ernakulam District will ensure that admission is granted WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 & WA No.1138 of 2022 11 to such students selected by the 4th respondent DEO to the management quota seats for each of the five courses without any further delay.
8. It is further ordered that the impugned Ext.P7 order dated 01.08.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent Director of General Education for the Academic year 2022-23, to the limited extent it affects the school management in question will stand superseded and modified by the aforesaid directions. In otherwords, the impugned directions at Ext.P7 ordering the merger of the 20% management quota seats with the open merit quota seats will stand rescinded and set aside to the extent it is in relation to the available vacancies in the management quota seats. These directions and orders by itself will not in any manner affect the admissions to be made for the next year in the management quota or will not affect in any manner, the Church disputes and the management disputes, pending in various civil litigations and writ proceedings. Further it is also ordered that all contentions are available in law to the petitioner, the respondents, as well as the party represented by Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.P.Martin Jose are left open to be raised and decided in appropriate cases in the future, if it is so warranted. Further, if it is not feasible for the petitioner to sponsor ten candidates for each of the vacancies in each of the 5 courses WP(C) No.25095 of 2022 & WA No.1138 of 2022 12 above due to paucity of candidates, then the candidates that may be sponsored by him could be less than that. In that regard, petitioner should give a detailed report before the 4th respondent DEO as to the circumstances as to why he could not sponsor ten candidates per vacancy, as above.
With these observations and directions, the above WP(C) will stand finally disposed of.
WA No.1138/2022 The above WA has arisen out of the aforementioned interim order dated 05.08.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge in the above WP(C). In view of the disposal of the main matter in the WP(C), as per the afore judgment, no further directions and orders are required in this Writ Appeal separately and hence the WA is only to be closed.
With these observations and directions the above WA will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE Nsd APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25095/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. K-DIS.
G4-22255/73 DATED 10.10.1973 AND THE APPROVED BYE-LAWS/CONSTITUTION OF THE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY UNDER THE ST. IGNATIUS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, KANJIRAMATTOM.
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.135/4851/10/K.DIS. DT. 18.09.2010, APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS THE MANAGER IN 2010, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING ORDER NO.
B5/3173/2015/K.DIS. DATED 23.05.2015, APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS MANAGER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY BEARING ORDER NO. B5/25006/2021 DATED 10.09.2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO HIGHER SECONDARY COURSES Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. I.C.T CELL/1771/D.G.E H.S.S.E/2022 DT.19.07.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID ORDER BEARING NO.
I.C.T CELL/1771/D.G.E H.S.S.E/2022 DT.01.08.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
NO.E3/3580/2020 DATED 17.04.2021.
Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF HE LETTER BEARING
NO.B5/1746/2022 DATED 16.03.2022, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.G.O.(RT) 2056/2022/GEN DATED 26/03/2022.
Exhibit P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R 6(a) True copy of G.O.(Rt).No.2002/12/G.Edn. dated 30.04.2012 of the 1st respondent EXHIBIT R 6(b) True copy of judgment in W.A.No.1011 of 2013 dated 17.03.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala EXHIBIT R 6(c) True copy of Order dated 18-07-2014 in S.L.P.
(C). No.16097 of 2014 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India EXHIBIT R 6(d) True copy of order dated 27-08-2015 in S.L.P.
(C). No. 16097 of 2014 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India EXHIBIT R 6(e) True copy of order bearing No.ECC31/40596/ 2014/ DPI/KDis dated 04-01-2016 of the Additional Director or Public Instructions (General)