Kerala High Court

Mrs.Susamma Mamachan vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 16693 OF 2015
PETITIONER:

          MRS.SUSAMMA MAMACHAN
          AGED 53 YEARS
          MANAGER, PENIEL SCHOOL (UNAIDED), KERALAPURAM, KOLLAM.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
          SMT.M.P.SEETHA



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
          EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695001

    2     THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
          TRIVANDRUM - 695001

    3     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
          KOLLAM - 689001

    4     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
          KOLLAM - 689001

          BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER



OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI BIJOY CHANDRAN, SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.16693 of 2015

                                      2

                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
              ---------------------
                 W.P (C) No.16693 of 2015
           ---------------------------
             Dated this the 6th day of March, 2024

                               JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1 st respondent to grant recognition/upgradation to petitioner's High School section forthwith.

(ii) Declare that the high school section of petitioner school is liable to be recognised or in the alternative the school is liable to be upgraded as High School.

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the Court may deem fit to grant, and

(iv) Grant the cost of this Writ Petition." (SIC)

2. It is submitted that the petitioner's unaided upper

primary school had been functioning from 1988 onwards

and recognition was granted in the year 2004. The

petitioner applied for upgradation of school as High School

in 2013, pursuant to the notification issued by the

Government. It is submitted that, in spite of the entire

infrastructure facilities as per KER as reported by the

District Educational Officer, the name of school was not

included in the final list issued by the Government is the

grievance of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Government Pleader.

4. The counsel for the petitioner takes me through

Ext.P7 proceedings of the District Educational Officer to the

Deputy Director, Kollam, which is issued in connection with

the upgradation of the school. In Ext.P7, it is stated that all

the required facilities are available and the request can be

considered. But when the orders are passed sanctioning

High School, the petitioner's school is excluded without any

reason is the submission.

5. A counter affidavit is filed in the above case by

the 1st respondent. The relevant portion of the counter

affidavit is extracted hereunder:-

"5. Thereafter the Government have directed the Director of Public Instruction to constitute a special team for scrutinizing the list of schools with reference to the documents and the Government guidelines and to furnish the list of schools to be recognized with recommendation. Accordingly, Director of Public Instruction has submitted a recommended list of schools for considering

recognition. The Petitioner's School and 3 other recognized schools were also included in the recommended list submitted by the Director of Public Instruction. The above 4 schools had applied for upgradation. Since Government have issued guidelines for granting recognition to the unrecognized unaided schools following State Syllabus the application for upgradation was not considered. Some schools including the petitioner's school had sought for recognition for the High School divisions which they propose to start from the coming/future academic year by upgrading the existing school, Recognition cannot be granted for the division which is not functioning at present. The Director of Public Instruction has reported that there are only 5 students studying in the petitioner's school in Standard VIII which started functioning only in the year 2014-15. Moreover, at the time of verification, Standard IX and X were not functioning in the school."

It is stated in the above paragraph that some schools

including the petitioner's school had sought for recognition

for the High School division which they proposed to start

from the next academic year by upgrading the existing

school. It is stated in the counter that the recognition

cannot be granted for the division which is not functioning

at present. But, the counsel for the petitioner takes me

through Ext.P5 order of the Director. The relevant portion of

Ext.P5 is extracted hereunder:

              "സ സ ന       പ ഠ പദത യ ൽ      പപവ തകന
       സ സ നതത             അ ഗ ക രമ ല ത         സ ള കൾക#
       അഗകര          നൽക നത ന# വവണ സ ചന 1,2 പപക ര
       മ ർഗ        വരഖകൾ    പ റത+ട വ ച ര ന .        CXns ൻറ
       അട സ നതൽ             അ ഗ ക രമ ല ത          സ ള കൾ
       അഗകര          ലഭ കനത ന# വവണ ജ ല വ ദ ഭ സ
       ആഫ സർമ ർക# നൽക യ അവപകകൾ ച ല ജ ല
       വദ ഭ സ          ഓഫ സർമ ർ          ത ത7       പറയ ന
       ക രണത ൽ             അവപകകൾ           \nckn ചXns ൻറ
       അട സ നതൽ ധ ര ള പര ത കൾ ഈ ഓഫ സ ൽ
       ലഭ കന .


              ഒര    സള ൽ    എൽ.പ .,    യ .പ .   വ ഭ ഗതന#
       അഗകര          ഉണ വ കയ , അ ഗ ക രമ ല ത എച#
       വ ഭ ഗതന# അ ഗ ക ര ലഭ ക ൻ അവപകചവ+ ൾ
       അഗകര          എനത ന# പകര       upgradation എന പദ
       ഉപവയ ഗ ചത ന#തറ ഭ ഗമ യ ന രസ കന . അവപക
       പ നർ സമർ+ ക ൻ ന ർവ>ശ നൽക കയ ണ# വവണത#.
       ഇത# എൽ.പ . വ ഭ ഗതന#            ന ലവ ൽ അ ഗ ക ര
       ലഭ ചത        അ ഗ ക രമ ല ത       യ .പ .   വ ഭ ഗതന#
       അ ഗ ക രതന# അവപകകവA 7                 ബ ധകമ ണ#.


              വമൽ    വ വരങൾ       എല      ഉപജ ല ,     ജല ,
       വദ ഭ സ          ഓഫ സർമ ര തടയ             അറ യ ക ൻ
                      F മ തര ച മതലത+ട തന ."
       വ ദ ഭ സ ഉപ ഡയറകർ

6. The counsel submitted that, in the light of Exts.P5

and P7, the matter is to be reconsidered. I think there is

force in the argument of the petitioner. There can be a

direction to reconsider the application of the petitioner for

the grant of recognition/upgradation to the petitioner's high

school section.

Therefore this Writ Petition is disposed of with the

following directions:

a) The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the question of grant of recognition/upgradation of the petitioner's high school section, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.