The Manager vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20557 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20557 Ker
Judgement Date : 1 October, 2021

Kerala High Court

The Manager vs The State Of Kerala on 1 October, 2021

WP(C) NO. 20842 OF 2021           1

            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. 20842 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          THE MANAGER,
          PARUDUR HSS, PALLIPPURAM, KARAMBATHUR P.O.,
          PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679 305.

          BY ADVS.
          T.T.MUHAMOOD
          V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
          A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
          T.R.VISHNU



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE 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 WING), DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL
          EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    3     THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR
          HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE,
          MALAPPURAM-676 505.



          SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20842 OF 2021                2

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is the Manager of Parudur Higher Secondary

School, Pallippuram, 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 Parudur Grama Panchayat, an educationally,

socially and economically backward area. Though the school is a Higher

Secondary School, only four Higher Secondary batches have been allotted. As

against 1000 students who pass SSLC, there are only 200 seats for Plus One

Course in the school. It is contended that the total requirement of Plus One

seats within the limits of Parudur Grama Panchayat would be around 1200 seats.

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 Ext.P2 order appointing Regional as well as State Level

Committees so as to determine the educational need of the locality. The

petitioner contends that the State Level Committee has concluded that there is

acute shortage of Plus One seats in the Parudur Grama Panchayat as per Ext.P3

report and sanctioning of additional Higher Secondary batches were

recommended. According to the petitioner, despite Ext.P3 report, 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 respondents 1 and 2 to

sanction three additional Higher secondary batches and also for a direction to

the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 representation within

a time frame.

2. I have heard Sri.T.T..Muhamood, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, who 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 in the light of Exhibit P3 within a time frame.

3. I have heard Smt. Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government

Pleader, who submitted that she has no objection in considering the said prayer.

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 in the light of Exhibit P3, 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 his 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.