Kerala High Court
The Manager, R.P.M. Higher ... vs State Of Kerala on 1 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Friday, the 1st day of October 2021 / 9th Aswina, 1943
WP(C) NO. 20853 OF 2021(F)
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGER, R.P.M. HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PANANGATTIRI,
KOLLENKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695
014.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.
4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, B2
BLOCK, CIVIL STATION ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA-676 505.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to :
a) direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to fill up
10% of community quota seats as management quota seats of plus one in the
school of the petitioner;
or
b) stay Ext.P5 in so far as it set apart 10% out of the 30% of
management quota seats as community quota seats of plus one pending
disposal of the Writ Petition (C).
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
M/S.K.MOHANAKANNAN, H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) Advocates for the petitioner
and of GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the respondents, the court passed the
following:
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) 3667/2021/G.EDN DATED
12.08.2021.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
---------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.20853 of 2021
----------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of October, 2021
ORDER
The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
2. I have heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The grievance of the petitioner herein centres around the norms and
guidelines for admission to Plus One Course in Private Aided Schools during the
present academic year.
4. Till the last academic year, insofar as Private Aided schools are
concerned, 50% of the seats were earmarked for the Open Merit candidates, 30% for
the Management Quota, 12% for the Scheduled Castes and 8% for the Scheduled
Tribes.
5. However, as per Clause 13 of the prospectus for admission to Plus One
course through the Single Window System for this academic year, the Government has
interfered with the 30% hitherto kept aside towards Management Quota in Private
Aided Schools. It has been stipulated that out of the 30% earmarked towards
Management Quota, 10% seats are to be allotted to students of the community on
merit basis and the balance 20% towards the Management Quota.
6. Sri. K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would refer to G.O.(Ms)No.206/2005/G.Edn. dated 01.07.2005 and it is argued that it
was pursuant to directions issued by this Court in various judgments that the
Government had prescribed the norms and guidelines for admission to Higher
Secondary course. The allotment of seats was as follows:
Government Private Aided Private Aided/Minority/
Backward Communities
Management
Open Merit 60% 50% 40%
Management Quota - 30% 40%
Other Backward
Communities
1. Ezhava 8% -- --
2. Muslim 7% -- --
3. Latin/SIUC 1% -- --
4. Other 1% -- --
Backward
Christian
Community
5. Other 3% -- --
Backward
Hindu
Community
Scheduled Caste 12% 12% 12%
Scheduled Tribe 8% 8% 8%
7. However, numerous complaints were received by the Government that
the rights of Minorities and Backward Classes were not being safeguarded. The
Government considered the matter in detail and concluded as follows in paragraphs
Nos. 5 and 6 of the order.
'5. Government have examined the case in detail in all its aspects
in the light of the specific observations of the Hon'ble High Court in the
judgments mentioned above. The Hon'ble High Court questioned only
the provision in the Government Order read as 1st paper above that
reservation for the community to which the school belongs. In the
judgment dated 7.4.2003, the Hon'ble High Court clarified that the
Courts' intention is not to take away the minority rights of certain
communities but only to strike down the arbitrary provision for the
reservation "for the communities to which the school belongs"
6. In the circumstances, Government have found that the orders
issued, in the Government order read as second paper above require
modification. Government therefore order to modify that from the
40% seats in Plus Two Course allotted as Management quota in the
Private Aided Minority/Backward Communities Management Schools,
20% will be for the minority/backward class, students (Ezhava-8%,
Muslim-7%, LC/SIUC/1%, OBC(Christian)1% and OBC(Hindu)3%) and
the remaining 20% seats will be for the concerned aided/minority
backward class management"
8. According to the learned counsel, the Government after considering all
representations had only modified the 40% seats in Private Aided/Minority/Backward
Communities Management and did not modify the 30% quota allotted for Private
Aided schools.
9. The petitioner contends that the school run by the petitioner not being a
minority school, it is incomprehensible as to how 10% seats can be allotted on the
basis of merit from the community. It is contended that it is by overlooking all these
aspects that the allocation of seats based on minority and merit was included in the
prospectus. The learned counsels would urge that it is not discernible as to whether
the community to which the 10% seats are to be allotted is the community of the
Manager or the community of the management committee members. The said
provision is unworkable, contends the learned counsel. It is also contended that the
prospectus issued by the respondents cannot override the previous Government
Order. Finally, it is submitted that the Private Aided Schools like the ones run by the
petitioner not being minority schools, do not enjoy protection of Articles 29(1) and
30(1) of the Constitution of India. They are entitled to admit students in Management
Quota and can only be subject to reasonable regulation by the State. According to the
learned counsel, the right of the petitioners as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India has been infringed by the interference of the respondents in
the process of admission.
10. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the prospectus was
approved vide G.O.(Rt) No. 3667/G.Edn. dated 12.8.2021. According to the learned
Government Pleader, the management quota seats are not being appropriated by the
Government. But, on the other hand, an option is given to the school to select the
community and to allocate the seats to meritorious students from the said community.
It is submitted that a statement shall be placed on record.
11. Having considered the rival submissions, I find that there is considerable
force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that their
right to admit students in the Management Quota is being curtailed by unworkable
conditions. A Private Aided school cannot be called upon to disclose a particular
community to which they belong.
In that view of the matter, as in interim measure, Ext.P5 insofar as it sets
apart 10% out of the 30% of the management quota seats as community quota seats
for Plus One admission will stand stayed insofar as the school managed by the
petitioner is concerned. There will be a further direction to the concerned respondent
to permit the petitioner to admit students in the Management Quota without insisting
that 10% of the seats shall be earmarked for being allotted to students from the same
community.
Post after ten days.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
sru
01-10-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
