IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37855 of 2008(F) PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SHAHAR BANU.C.N (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND GUARDIAN, C.N. ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 43, POOVATHINKAVIL HOUSE, ULLANAM NORTH.P.O, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. FOUSIYA (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND GUARDIAN, C. ABDU RAHIMANKUTTY, AGED 49, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, MUNDIYANKAVU KALARIKKAL HOUSE, ULLANAM NORTH.P.O, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. JUHIANA, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY FATHER AND GUARDIAN, M. MOHAMMED KOYA TANGAL, AGED 45, S/O. SAYED MOHAMMED KOYA TANGAL, KURUPPATH HOUSE, ULLANAM NORTH.P.O, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 37855 OF 2008 F ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners state that they are studying in Al-Azhar High School, Parappanangadi. Temporary recognition was granted to the School to start Standards VIII to X for the year 2004-2005 in the unaided sector. It is stated that the District Educational Officer granted recognition for the subsequent year 2005-2006 as well. It would appear that the School was shifted to another property without getting prior permission from the authorities under the Kerala Education Act and Rules. Ext.P1 order dated 4.12.2006 passed by the District Educational Officer would show that the Management of the School did not provide the necessary infrastructure to the school. However, temporary recognition was granted up to 31.3.2007 to enable the students of X standard to appear for the examination. It is made mention in Ext.P1 that the recognition would stand withdrawn from 1.4.2007. 2. On 26.5.2008, by Ext.P2 order, the District Educational Officer withdrew the recognition of the School in respect of Standards VIII to X with effect from 1.4.2008. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the Manager had filed an application for review of Ext.P2 order, but the District W.P.(C) NO. 37855 OF 2008 :: 2 :: Educational Officer dismissed the same. Though the Manager filed W.P. (C) No.35928 of 2008, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the Manager to file a statutory Revision before the Government. The petitioners state that even if the Manager files a Revision, it would be too late for the petitioners to get an opportunity to appear for S.S.L.C. Examination to be held in March, 2009. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents 3 and 4 herein to allow the Petitioners and other 49 students whose names are listed in Exhibit P3 list, studying in Class 10 in the Al-Azhar High School, Parappanangadi to appear for the SSLC Examination for the year 2008- 2009 in any other school centre within the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent; and (ii) grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit, just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in similar cases, W.P.(C) Nos.2766 of 2008 and 33440 of 2008, this Court had not entertained the Writ Petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to make a distinction that those cases related to schools which were not recognized at all at any point of time. In the present case, temporary W.P.(C) NO. 37855 OF 2008 :: 3 :: recognition was granted which was subsequently withdrawn. That distinction, to my mind, is not a justification for entertaining the Writ Petition. The petitioners would very well move the Government for appropriate orders to protect their interests. This Court would not be justified in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to move the Government for appropriate orders, the Writ Petition is closed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/