IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 8695 of 2006(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PARENT TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, P.T.M. YATHEEMKHANA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, EDAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI.E.K.MOHAMMED. 2. KUNHIMOIDEEN, CORRESPONDENT MANAGER, P.T.M.YATHEEMKHANA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, EDAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION (F) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. THE MANAGER, A.L.P.SCHOOL, NEDUNGOTTUR, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN FOR R6 SRI.M.N.SANJITH FOR R6 SRI.T.A.SREE KUMAR FOR R6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE FOR R1TO5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 8695/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : EXT.P1: COPY OF GOVT. ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.456/05/G.EDN. DATED 22.12.2005 BY R1. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8695 of 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the Parent Teachers Association of P.T.M. Yatheemkhana Higher Secondary School, Edapalam, Palakkad District and the correspondent-Manager of the school. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following : “(i) To issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from granting any upgradation of the school of the sixth respondent without complying with the formalities of the Kerala Education Rules and without affording an opportunity to the petitioners/to object and present their view before the Government. (ii) To declare that the granting upgradation to the sixth respondent school violating the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules is absolutely invalid in law and liable to be interdicted by this Hon'ble Court. (iii) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” WPC No.8695/2006 2 2. It is stated that as per Exhibit P1 order dated 22.12.2005, the request of the sixth respondent to upgrade A.L.P. School, Nedungottur was rejected by the Government. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the sixth respondent has started collecting money from prospective appointees by pretending that the request for upgradation has been granted. It is also stated in the Writ Petition thus : “Nevertheless on account of the tremendous influence commanded by the sixth respondent particularly on the eve of the elections, it is gathered that the Government is proposing to pass an order granting upgradation to the sixth respondent school. If this is done the interests of the petitioners' school will be adversely affected, besides leading to a patent infraction of law.” 3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there is no proposal for upgradation of the sixth respondent school. Only after issuing a Notification, the question of upgradation of any school would be considered and granted. After the Notification is issued, any person objecting to the proposal would WPC No.8695/2006 3 be heard. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the Writ Petition is speculative and premature. Sri.Sajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent, denied all the allegations levelled against the sixth respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners have any subsisting grievance which can be entertained in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the apprehension of the petitioners voiced in the Writ Petition shows that the Writ Petition is premature. No rights of the petitioners are affected as of now. If any Notification is issued proposing the upgradation of any school, the parties concerned would get an opportunity to raise their objections. I do not think that the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds for granting any relief to them at this stage. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of, reserving the rights of the petitioners as mentioned above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl