Kerala High Court
Manager vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2021
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. 19943 OF 2021(P)
PETITIONER:
MANAGER, H.H.S.I.B SWAMIJI'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, P.O. EDNEER,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671 541.
RESPONDENTS:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2. DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
HIGHER SECONDARY WING, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
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
1. stay the operation and implementation of Exhibit P4 Government
Order and that part of Exhibit P3 prospectus which fixed Management quota
in respct of petitioner's school pending disposal of the above Writ
Petition.
2. issue an interim direction directing the 2nd respondent to allow
the petitioner to admit the students in petitioner's school in the
Management Quota without 10% from the same community on merit basis and
20% quota in Private Aided Schools, the quota fixed in Exhibit P3
prospectus by the 2nd respondent.
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
Sri. M.RAMESH CHANDER, Senior Advocate along with M/s M.VIJAYAKUMAR, BEJOY
JOSEPH P.J. and BALU TOM CHERUVALLY, Advocates for the petitioner and of
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondents, the court passed the following:
p.t.o
Exhibit P2: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE G.O.(Ms)No.206/2005/G.Edn.dated
01.07.2005
Exhibit P3:- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR THE YEAR 2021-2022
FOR SINGLE WINDOW SYSTEM FOR ADMISSION TO PLUS ONE COURSE.
Exhibit P4:- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT) NO.
3667/2021/G.EDN DATED 12-08-2021.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
---------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.19943 of 2021
----------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2021
ORDER
The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
I have heard Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner as instructed by Sri.Bonny Benny 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
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. M. Ramesh Chander, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would refer to Ext.P2 order produced in the writ petition 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%
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.
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, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. 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
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. As rightly submitted by the
learned counsel, there is a lack of clarity in Ext.P3 prospectus.
In that view of the matter, as in interim measure, the operation and
implementation of prospectus produced as Ext.P3 will stand stayed insofar as the
school managed by the petitioner is concerned. There will be a further direction to
the 2nd 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
