Kerala High Court
The Manager, Desabandhu Higher ... vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2021
WP(C) No.20016/2021 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Friday, the 24th day of September 2021 / 2nd Aswina, 1943
WP(C) NO. 20016 OF 2021(B)
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGER, DESABANDHU HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THACHAMPARA,
MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT-678582.
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;
b) to stay the 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 orders 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
petitioners, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for respondents, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
WP(C) No.20016/2021 2/7
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
---------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.20016 of 2021
----------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2021
ORDER
The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
I have heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
WP(C) No.20016/2021 3/7
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.
5. 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%
WP(C) No.20016/2021 4/7
6. 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"
7. 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.
WP(C) No.20016/2021 5/7
8. 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.
9. 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
WP(C) No.20016/2021 6/7
community. It is submitted that a statement shall be placed on record.
10. 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
IAP
24-09-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(C) No.20016/2021 7/7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20016/2021
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) 3667/2021/G.EDN
DATED12.08.2021.
