The Manager, Kuttamboor Higher ... vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 22967 Ker

WP(C) NO. 26099 OF 2021           1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
 TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 26099 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

             THE MANAGER, KUTTAMBOOR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
             PUNNASSERY P.O., VIA NARIKUNI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

             BY ADVS.
             K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
             HARISH R. MENON
             K.N.ABHA
             A.G.PRASANTH



RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
             EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

     2       THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
             (HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION), 2ND FLOOR, HOUSING
             BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
             695 001

     3       THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
             HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, PARAPPIL P.O.

             KOZHIKODE-673 001



             SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   23.11.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 26099 OF 2021              2

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is the Manager of Kuttamboor Higher

Secondary School, Punnasery, an aided school governed by the provisions of

the Kerala Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is contended

that the school is situated within the limits of Kakkur Grama Panchayat, an

educationally, socially and economically backward area. The number of Plus

one seats available in the school is only 100 whereas the number of children

who pass SSLC and equivalent examinations in and around the nearby areas is

much higher. Hundreds of students of the area are deprived of an opportunity

to pursue higher education for want of Plus One seats. Highlighting the

educational need and the acute shortage of seats, the petitioner is stated to

have filed Ext.P1 representation before the 1st respondent. The petitioner

contends that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Manager, St.

Sebastian's High School, Thrissur District v. State of Kerala and Ors.

[2015 KHC 725], the Government has issued orders appointing Regional as

well as State Level Committees so as to determine the educational need of the

locality. The petitioner asserts that the State Level Committee has concluded

that there is an acute shortage of Plus One seats in the Kakkur Grama

Panchayat and sanctioning of additional Higher Secondary batches were

recommended. According to the petitioner, no action has been taken by the

respondents. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this

Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to sanction additional Higher

Secondary batches to the petitioner's school in Humanities, Science and

Commerce.

2. Sri.K.T.Shyam Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied

if the 1st respondent is directed to consider and take a decision on Exhibit-P1

representation within a time frame.

3. I have heard Sri. Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government

Pleader.

4. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by

issuing the following directions:

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up,

consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit-P1

representation, as per procedure and in strict adherence to

the provisions of law, after affording an opportunity of

being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner

herein or their authorised representative.

b) Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the

writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned

respondent for further action.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26099/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.B1/7225/00/HSE DATED 30.5.2000 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) 245/2001 /G.EDN DATED 2.8.2001 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.48/2019/G.EDN DATED 27.5.2019 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) 79/2019/G.EDN DATED 28.6.2019 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.2560/2002/G.EDN DATED 7.8.2002 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.155/2002/G.EDN DATED 11.6.2002 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.7.2020 IN W.P.C NO.18096 OF 2019 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.191/2021/G.EDN DATED 02.09.2021 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 31.8.2021 OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION, KAKKUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DATED 20.11.2017 OF THE PETITIONER'S SCHOOL Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.4160/2021/G.EDN DATED 20.9.2021 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.241/2021/G.EDN DATED 28.10.2021

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL