IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 23RD MAGHA 1928 WP(C).No. 1220 of 2007(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, SIR SYED HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.KARIMBAM, TALIPARAMBA- 670142, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT K.V.M.KUNHI. 2. MANAGER, SIR SYED HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.KARIMBAM, TALIPARAMBA- 670142, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN SMT.MINI.V.A. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-12. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. *ADDL.R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED: R3. RIYAS ATHIKULANGARA, S/O.P.V. ANDRU, AGED 32 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHS), SEETHI SAHIB HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 141. ...2/- ....2.... WPC.NO.1220/2007 T R4. SIRAJUL MUNEER P.T., HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM), SEETHI SAHIB HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 141. (ADDL.R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 30/012007 IN I.A.NO.1188/2007) *ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED: R5. DR.K.V.JANARDHANAN NAMBIAR, MANAGER, MOOTHEDATH HIGH SCHOOL, P.O.TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. (ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 12/02/2007 IN I.A.NO.1295/07) BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SREELATHA M.R. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.NO.1220/2007 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EX.C.G.(1)/23885/2006 DTD. 02/08/2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF STD.X FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT OF THE D.D.E., KANNUR DTD. 27/09/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 11/10/2006 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE VERIFICATION STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DTD. 3/11/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 08/11/2006 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.30632/06 DTD. 23/11/2006 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CGI (1)23885/06 DTD.03/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5-11351 DTD. 13/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.G1(1) 34200/2005/CGE DTD. 17/11/2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5/7255/04 DTD. 03/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. 3RD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A): COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE DIST. COLLECTOR DTD.15/11/2004. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE R1(A): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5.11351/03 DTD. 13/10/05. ANNEXURE R1(B): COPY OF THE ERRATUM ORDER NO.A5.11351/03 DTD. 16/11/05. /TRUE COPY/ Kss K.M.JOSEPH, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.1220 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of February, 2007 JUDGMENT Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: First petitioner is the PTA of Sir Syed High School, Taliparamba and the second petitioner is the Manager of the School. The second petitioner was sanctioned a High School at Karimbam during the academic year 2004-2005. However, the petitioners are aggrieved by the denial of new centre for SSLC Examination to be held in March, 2007. Petitioners had approached this court earlier. By Ext.P7 judgment this court had found that the finding therein that there is no required strength in the School was not sustainable and directed the matter to be reconsidered. Ext.P8 is the order passed, which is impugned. By Ext.P8 it is found that the broad principles for deciding to sanction a centre in a new School are that there should be atleast 40 children and the distance to the nearest existing centre should be more 4 Kms. It is further stated that even if the number of children is less than 40, in exceptional cases if the school is located in a very remote area then the requests for new centre is genernally considered WPC.1220/2007. 2 favourably. Similarly in case the distance to the existing centre is less than 4 Kms., a new centre gets considered if there is a large number of candidates expected at the proposed centre or if the existing nearby centre is already too crowded, it is stated. It is further stated that these two conditions have been elaborated in the Circular dated 2.8.2006. It is further stated as follows: “I also understand from the Secretary, CGE that generally new examination centres are sanctioned only in schools which have permanent recognition. However, exceptions have been made and schools which have temporary recognition also have been sanctioned examination centres in previous years. However, during the current academic year no school which has a temporary recognition has been sanctioned a new examination centre, though there were applications from schools with temporary recognition. Sir Syed HS has 44 children and hence definitely there is adequate children for claiming a new centre. However, the distance to the nearest existing centre is only 2 kms. As per DEOs report and as admitted by the Manager & PTA President during hearing the distance does not exceeed 3 Kms. It cannot be said that Sir Syed HS is WPC.1220/2007. 3 presenting a large number of students for SSLC Examination. They are presenting only 44 children, just 4 more than what is mandatorily required as the minimum number for stating a claim for a new examination centre. There is also no case that Sri Syed School is remotely located or is not well connected. Hence by the distance norms Sir Syed HS does not establish a convincing claim for an examination centre.” 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. A.A.Abul Hassan. He would point out certain examples referred to in paragrah 7 of the writ petition. It is stated that the nearest High School in one case is situated only 1 Km away. It is also pointed out that in respect of St. Joseph's High School, Pushpagiri, Taliparamba a new SSLC Examination centre was sanctioned during March, 2006 though there were only 40 students in Standard X and the distance to the nearest High School is only 600 meters. It is also pointed out that St.Joseph's High School was having only temporary recognition. Exts.P9 and P10 are relied on in this regard. 3. In paragraph 7 of the statement filed on behalf of the first WPC.1220/2007. 4 respondent it is stated as follows: “During this year new examination centers are sanctioned only in the School which have permanent recognition. The broad principles for deciding to sanction a new Exam centre in new School are that there should be at least 40 children and the distance to the nearest existing centre should be more than 4 Km and the school should have permanent recognition. A new Examination Centre sanctioned to St. Joseph's H.S. Pushpagiri during 2005-06 and School having the permanent recognition as order No.A5.11351/03 dated 16.11.2005 of the D.E.O., Kannur.” In paragraph 5 it is stated as follows: “It is submitted that during the current academic year no school which has a temporary recognition has been sanctioned a new examination centre. The Rahmania H.S. Muttom is an unaided School having permanent recognition and this School has fulfilled all the conditions prescribed for granting independent examination centre for S.S.L.C. March, 2007. The St. Joseph's H.S., Pushpagiri, Thaliparamba in Kannur Education District having permanent recognition and there were 40 students in St.X for the SSLC Exam. 03/06. Permanent recognition has been granted to St. Joseph's H.S. Pushpagiri as per order WPC.1220/2007. 5 No.A5.11351/03 dated 13.10.05 of the D.E.O. Kannur. The School has satisfied all conditions prescribed for a new examination centre. The argument of the Manager is incorrect.” Learned Government Pleader points out paragraph 8 of the statement to show that students are permitted to write the examination at the Seethi Sahib H.S. Thaliparamba on clubbing arrangement and all details have been included in the web site and the process of issuing Hall Tickets also commenced. Therefore the case is that Rahmania H.S. Muttom is an unaided School having permanent recognition and has fulfilled all the conditions prescribed. Even according to the petitioners Rahmania High School has 51 students. No doubt petitioners have a case that contention based on permanency of the recognition is not available to the Government in view of Rule 1(4) of Chapter V. There is also no reference to it in Ext.P1, it is submitted. Whatever that be, it is to be noted that even going by Ext.P1, the nearest High School should be more than 4 Kms away. It is not in dispute that the nearest High School in this case is less than 4 Kms away. Petitioners do not actually fulfill the criteria laid down in Ext.P1 for claiming a new examination WPC.1220/2007. 6 centre. I feel that in the light of totality of facts petitioners have not made out a case for quashing Ext.P8. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb K.M.JOSEPH, JJ. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. OF - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Dated this the day of February, 2006.