Kerala High Court
Manager, Anjarakandy Higher ... vs The State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2021
WP(C) No.22477/2021 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Wednesday, the 20th day of October 2021 / 28th Aswina, 1943
WP(C) NO. 22477 OF 2021(H)
PETITIONER:
MANAGER, ANJARAKANDY HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, ANJARAKANDY,
KAVINMOOLA, P.O. MAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 611
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION (HIGHER SECONDARY WING), HOUSING
BOARD BUIDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.
3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
THAVAKKARA, KANNUR-670 002
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 issue an interim direction commanding the 2nd respondent to
permit the petitioner to fill up 30% of management quota seats within a
time limit pending finalization of the writ petition.
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. U.BALAGANGADHARAN, G.GIREESH Advocates for the petitioner and of
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for respondents (B/o), the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.22477/2021 2/7
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
---------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.22477 of 2021
----------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2021
ORDER
The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
2. I have heard Sri.U. Balagangadharan, 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 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
WP(C) No.22477/2021 3/7
community on merit basis and the balance 20% towards the Management Quota.
6. Sri. U. Balagangadharan, 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
WP(C) No.22477/2021 4/7
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 and not established by any community, it is
WP(C) No.22477/2021 5/7
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 counsel 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 petitioner 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.
WP(C) No.22477/2021 6/7
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.P2 and P3 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. It is made clear that this order shall be
operative only if the school managed by the petitioner is not an aided school
established by a minority/backward community.
Post after ten days.
Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order today itself.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
NS
20-10-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(C) No.22477/2021 7/7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22477/2021
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O NO. GO(RT) NO. 3667/2021/G.EDN
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 DATED 12.08.2021.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. ICT CELL/1771/1/DGE-
HSE/2021 DTD. 24.09.2021.
[email protected]
