IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 4805 of 2008(V) ------------------------------ PETITIONER : ----------------------- SREE MARUTHI VIDYALAYA H.S.S., PAZHINJIKUZHI, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM-695 126, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER, NEW DELHI. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,NEYYATTINKARA. 4. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI. A.J. VARGHESE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,SC, CBSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2008 ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 12944 OF 2008 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 4805/ 2008 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF A PAMPHLET ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER SCHOOL. EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH THE DEO, NEYYATTINKARA. EXHIBIT P2(a) : COPY OF THE CHELAN EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS.25,000/-. EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT FORWARDING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETTIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S OFFICE ALONG WITH THE VISIT REPORT. EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 2/11/2006 OF THE 4TH RSPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 : COPY OF THE G.O.(P) 107/07 G.EDN. DATED 13/06/2007. EXHIBIT P6 : COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27/11/2007 RESUBMITTING THE APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE CLASS SYLLABUS AND PROVISIONAL AFFILIATION WITH CBSE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 : COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OBTAINED ON LINE FROM CBSE. EXHIBIT P8 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2007 PASSD BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 : COPY OF THE AFFILIATION BYE LAWS OF CBSE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------- W.P(C) Nos. 4805 of 2008, 12881 of 2008, 12853 of 2008, 34006 of 2008, 21941 of 2008,12854 of 2008, 9583 of 2008,12944 of 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT W.P(C) No. 4805 of 2008 The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the application of the petitioner seeking approval of Middle Class Syllabus as expeditiously as possible. Their further prayer is that if N.O.C. of the first respondent is required for the approval of Middle Class Syllabus of the petitioner school, to direct the first respondent to consider Exhibit P2 application submitted by the petitioner seeking approval of Middle Class Syllabus. 2. Facts of the case are that according to the petitioner, their school is established at Neyyattinkara some time in 2002 and by Exhibit P2, they applied to the first respondent for the N.O.C. of the State Government in order to seek approval of the second respondent. Along with Exhibit P2, they also remitted the prescribed fee of Rs.25,000/-. It is stated that Exhibit P2 was submitted to the D.E.O, who forwarded the same to the DPI along with Exhibit P3, the visit report recommending to issue N.O.C. The petitioner submits that by Exhibit P4, Exhibit P2 application was W.P(C) No. 4805 /2008 and connected cases 2 returned by the DPI stating that the Government have appointed a high level committee for recommending principles and guidelines to be followed for granting N.O.C for CBSC/ICSE affiliated institutions. In Exhibit P4, the petitioner was directed to submit the application after a policy has been framed by the Government in this matter. 3. Petitioner submits that subsequently Exhibit P5 Government Order dated 13/06/2007 was issued declaring the policy of the Government in the matter of issuing N.O.C to such schools. Clause 2 of Exhibit P5 deals with recognition of Unaided Schools and N.O.C. for CBSE/ICSE Schools. It is stated that Clause 2 of Exhibit P5 was challenged before this court in W.P.(C)No.8120/2007 and connected cases and that those writ petitions were disposed of quashing Clause 2 of Exhibit P5. It is stated that writ appeal filed by the State was also dismissed directing consideration of the applications made to the 1st respondent. 4. Following the judgment referred to above, Exhibit P2 application was resubmitted to the 1st respondent along with Exhibit P6. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P7, an on-line application to the CBSE, seeking approval of Middle Class syllabus. It is stated that Exhibit P7 is pending. W.P(C) No. 4805 /2008 and connected cases 3 5. The petitioner submits that the applications for NOC resubmitted by some of the similarly situated schools were rejected by the first respondent vide Exhibit P8 order dated 15/11/2007 and reasons stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 are extracted below for reference; “ 7. The applications have been examined in detail on the basis of the report of the Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram. All the applicant schools have not obtained recognition from the state Government to run middle class. Further they have also not obtained permission from the CBSE/ICSE to run middle class as envisaged in the guidelines issued by the State Government in GO(MS) 18/88/G.Edn dated 12/01/88. Further the applicant schools at Serial Number 6,9,13,16,19,20,23 and 24 are not paying salary and perks to the employees in tune with the existing norms of the Government. Hence, it is clear that the applicant schools could not satisfy the conditions stipulated in the Guidelines issued in GO(MS) 18/88/G.Edn dated 12/01/88 for NOC. 8. For the reasons stated above, the application of the applicant schools for NOC for affiliation of their school to the W.P(C) No. 4805 /2008 and connected cases 4 CBSE/ICSE cannot be entertained to and therefore, rejected in compliance with the Common Judgment in W.P(C) No.8120/2007 and connected cases and interim order of the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A. No.2497/2007 and connected Appeals” 6. It is stated that decision in Exhibit P8 is based on clause 12 of G.O(P) No.18/88/G. Edn dated 12/01/1988, which provides that no institution shall be affiliated or continued to be affiliated or recommended to be affiliated unless middle section of the school is recognized by the Education Department of the State, except in cases syllabus of the Middle Class is approved by the Chairman of the CBSE. The petitioner submits it made Exhibit P7 seeking approval of the syllabus by the Chairman of the CBSE in view of the aforesaid provision with Govt. Order dated 12/01/1988 and that in terms of affiliation bye-laws of CBSE, NOC of the state is necessary for seeking approval of the syllabus and it was therefore that they submitted Exhibit P2 application to the 1st respondent. In Paragraphs 8,9 and 10, of the writ petition, petitioner states that the first respondent is taking the stand that N.O.C. is not required for obtaining approval of the Middle Class Syllabus and therefore, orders are not passed on Exhibit P2 W.P(C) No. 4805 /2008 and connected cases 5 which was resubmitted along with Exhibit P6. 7. From the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and the learned G.P, it is obvious that no order has been passed by the first respondent on Exhibit P2 application resubmitted by the petitioner. Grant of approval for Middle Class Syllabus sought for by the petitioner, is governed by the affiliation bye-laws of CBSE and this is evident from Chapter 2 Rule 3, which provides the norms of affiliation. It is provided in Chapter 2 of the affiliation bye-laws, that before applying, the school should ensure that it fulfills the essential requirements of affiliation given in Rule 3 (3) of Chapter 2 and that no application will be considered unless the essential requirements are fulfilled by the school. Chapter 2 Rule 3(3)(1) provides for the production of NO.C from the State Government. Therefore, it is mandatory that an applicant should produce NOC of the State Government for approval of Middle Class Syllabus by the CBSE and the stand to the contrary is incorrect. The necessity of production of NOC is also reiterated before me by the learned counsel for the CBSE. 8. In fact learned G.P submitted that applications made by some of the writ petitioners in the connected cases have been rejected by the CBSE and made available a copy of the order of the CBSE dated W.P(C) No. 4805 /2008 and connected cases 6 10/11/2008 issued to the Managing Trustee, Paradise Public School. This order shows that absence of NOC is one of the reasons resulting in the rejection of the application made. Therefore, from this order of the CBSE also the requirement of NOC for obtaining approval Middle Class Syllabus, is evident. 9. Now that the requirement of NOC has been found to be essential for seeking approval of the middle class syllabus, what is to be considered is the necessity of the Government to pass orders on Exhibit P2 application made by the petitioner and resubmitted along with Exhibit P6. The Government has no case that it has passed any order on Exhibit P2 on its resubmission by Exhibit P6. Since NOC is a necessary requirement for obtaining approval of Middle Class Syllabus from the CBSE and as the petitioner has resubmitted Exhibit P2 along with Exhibit P6, it is the duty of the first respondent to consider Exhibits P2 and P6 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with its policy governing the same. Therefore, I direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P2 application submitted by the petitioner along with Exhibit P6 in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 10. It is stated that Exhibits P2 and P6 applications are now W.P(C) No. 4805 /2008 and connected cases 7 pending before the DP1. Since orders on application for NOC are to be passed by the Government, I direct the DPI to forward the application to the first respondent immediately on production of the copy of this judgment and orders shall be passed by the Government, at any rate within 8 weeks of receipt of the application from the DPI. The petitioner shall produce copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 3 for compliance. W.P(C)No.12853 of 2008 In this writ petition, the main prayer is to direct the first respondent to issue NOC, for seeking approval of the Middle Class Syllabus by the CBSE. The request of the petitioner is to be considered by the Government in the light of the judgment in W.P(C) No.4805 of 2008. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that the application submitted by the petitioner has been returned by the DEO. If that is so, it will be opened to the petitioner to resubmit the application to DEO, who shall forward the same to the DPI, who in turn shall forward the application to the first respondent for considering the same as directed in the judgment in WP(C) 4805/2008. It is clarified that the fact that the CBSE has rejected the petitioner's application for approval of Middle Class Syllabus for want of NOC, shall not be used against the petitioners while considering their application for NOC. W.P(C) No. 4805 /2008 and connected cases 8 The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. W.P(C)No.12944 of 2008 In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks NOC from the State Government for seeking approval of the Middle Class Syllabus by the second respondent. The issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the Judgment in W.P(C)No.4805 of 2008 and therefore, it is directed that the directions in the judgment in W.P(C). 4805/2008 shall apply to the petitioner also and the matter shall be dealt with accordingly. W.P(C)No.9583 of 2008 In this writ petition, by submitting Exhibit P1, the petitioner is seeking NOC from the first respondent for the approval of Middle Class Syllabus from the second respondent. According to the learned Government Pleader, the application submitted by the petitioner to the CBSE has been rejected for the reason that NOC has not been produced. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner's application for NOC is pending before the first respondent. The application has to be considered so that the petitioner can submit the application to CBSE. The issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment in WP(C) No. 4805/2008 and it is ordered that Exhibit P1 shall be dealt with in the manner as directed in the W.P(C) No. 4805 /2008 and connected cases 9 judgment in WP(C) No.4805/2008. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. W.P(C)Nos.12881 of 2008 & 12854 of 2008 In these writ petitions also the petitioners are seeking NOC of the first respondent for the purpose of seeking approval of Middle Class Syllabus from the second respondent. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the application submitted to the first respondent on their behalf. In view of the judgment in W.P(C) No.4805/2008, these applications are also required to be considered by the first respondent in the manner as directed therein. The writ Petitions are disposed of directing that applications for NOC submitted by the petitioners shall be considered and pass orders as directed in W.P(C)No.4805/2008. The petitioners submit that the DEO has to forward their applications to the DPI. If it is so, I direct that on production of copy of the judgment, DEO shall forward the application to the DPI, who immediately on receipt forward the same to first respondent to be dealt with in the manner as directed in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.4805/2008. W.P(C)No.34006 of 2008 In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks NOC of the first respondent for obtaining approval of Middle Class Syllabus from the CBSE. Exhibit W.P(C) No. 4805 /2008 and connected cases 10 P1 is the application. However, it appears from Exhibit P3 order, passed by the DEO, that the application has been returned on the ground that Government have not published any notification on that behalf. Dealing with similar issue, this court has already held in the judgment of W.P(C) No.4805of 2008 that NOC is essential for obtaining the approval of the CBSE. The reasons stated in Exhibit P3 are incorrect and erroneous. Therefore, Exhibit P3 shall stand set aside. It is open to the petitioner to submit the application to DEO within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, who shall forward the same to the DPI and who shall transmit the application to the Government for consideration within two weeks of its receipt and thereafter the Government shall consider and pass orders within two months as directed in the judgment in W.P(C).No.4805/2008. W.P(C)No.21941 of 2008 In this writ petition also, the petitioner submitted an application to the first respondent for obtaining NOC for seeking approval of the 4th respondent for Middle Class Syllabus. According to the petitioner,the application is still pending before the first respondent and orders have not been passed. This court already in the judgment of W.P(C)No.4805 of W.P(C) No. 4805 /2008 and connected cases 11 2008 has directed that NOC is an essential requirement for seeking approval of the CBSE. If the petitioner had made an application as stated and if that application is pending before the first respondent, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the application made by the petitioner and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of 8 weeks from the date of production of copy of the judgment along with copy of the writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm