Kerala High Court
A. Krishnaveni vs State Of Kerala on 20 October, 2021
WP(C) No.22286/2021 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. 22286 OF 2021(I)
PETITIONERS:
1. A. KRISHNAVENI,JOINT MANAGER, CHEMPAKASSERY EDUCATIONAL AGENCY
(CHEMPAKASSERY SCHOOLS), BHOOTHAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM,PIN-691 302
2. A.RAJAGOPAL JOINT MANAGER, CHEMPAKASSERY EDUCATIONAL AGENCY
(CHEMPAKASSERY SCHOOLS), BHOOTHAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM,PIN-691 302
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001
2. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014
3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION,PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 033
3
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 to the respondents to permit the
petitioners to fill the entire 30% management quota seats for plus one
admission without insisting that 10% of the seats will be earmarked for
being allotted to students from the same community, pending dispsoal of
the Writ Petition (Civil).
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.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, N.SANTHA, V.VARGHESE, PETER JOSE CHRISTO,
S.A.ANAND,K.N.REMYA,ANNAPOORNA.L, VISHNU V.K., ABHIRAMI K. UDAY, KURUVILLA
SABU CHRISTY Advocates for the petitioners and of GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
respondents (B/o), the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.22286/2021 2/7
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
---------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.22286 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.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The grievance of the petitioners 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 Ext.P1 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.
WP(C) No.22286/2021 3/7
6. Sri.Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners 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
WP(C) No.22286/2021 4/7
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 petitioners contend that the school run by the petitioners not being
a minority school and not established by any community, 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 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
WP(C) No.22286/2021 5/7
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 petitioners 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.
11. Having considered the rival submissions, I find that there is
considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners 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
WP(C) No.22286/2021 6/7
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 petitioners 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
Sru
20-10-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(C) No.22286/2021 7/7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22286/2021
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROSPECTUS
2021-22 FOR ADMISSION TO PLUS ONE COURSE, ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.3667/2021/G.EDN DATED
12.08.2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.ICT CELL/1771/1/DGE-
HSE/2021 DATED 24.09.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
