IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31536 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGER, ST.JOSEPH'S L.P.SCHOOL, KARAYAMPARAMBU, KARUKUTTY P.O., PIN-683576. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ANGAMALY P.O., PIN-683 572. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALUVA P.O., PIN-683101. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-685001. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030. 6. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31536 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Manager of St.Joseph's L.P. School, Karayamparambu. The school is a Pre KER School. It is stated that the school was established and administered by a Christian Religious Minority under the St. Joseph's Catholic Church of the Arch Diocese of Ernakulam – Angamaly. The school is an 'uneconomic' school. During 2009-2010, the total strength of the students in classes 1 to 4 was 47. It is stated that the students' strength for 2010-2011 is only 19. 2. The school is situated on the side of the National Highway. The total extent of the school compound was 22.362 cents in survey No.260/7 of Karukutty Village. Out of this extent, an extent of 10.872 cents was acquired for widening the National Highway. A major portion of the building was demolished. WPC No.31536/2010 2 3. According to the petitioner, it is not possible to continue the school in the remaining portion. According to him, there is no educational need to continue the school. The petitioner expressed his desire to close down the school by Exhibit P3 communication addressed to the Assistant Educational Officer with copy to the Director of Public Instruction, Deputy Director of Education and District Educational Officer. Exhibit P4 letter dated 19.10.2009 was issued by the Director of Public Instruction to the Government, taking into account Exhibit P3 submitted by the petitioner as well. In Exhibit P4, the Director of Public Instruction pointed out that the classes cannot be conducted in the remaining portion of the school. The students studying in the school belong to economically weaker sections of the society. In the vicinity, there are no other schools to accommodate these students. According to the Director of Public Instruction, a two storied building can be constructed in the remaining portion of the land, so that the school can be retained. 4. On receipt of the copy of Exhibit P4, the petitioner WPC No.31536/2010 3 sent a detailed representation dated 6th November, 2009 to the Government. The petitioner requested that the students may be allowed to continue their studies in the nearby school. According to the petitioner, it is not feasible to construct a school building in the remaining portion of the property left after acquisition. 5. The Tahsildar, Aluva sent Exhibit P10 report dated 9.6.2010 to the District Collector, Ernakulam stating that the school building should be demolished. The report indicates that the Headmistress was of the view that the school should be retained in the same place. The Tahsildar suggested admission of the students in the nearby school and demolition of the old building. 6. As per Exhibit P11 communication dated 17.6.2010, the Assistant Educational Officer directed the petitioner to stop the functioning of the school in the old building and to find out alternate accommodation. The petitioner replied as per Exhibit P12 dated 21.6.2010 stating that alternative accommodation can WPC No.31536/2010 4 be arranged by taking a building on rent for a period of one year ending with 31st March, 2011. 7. As per Exhibit P13 dated 28.6.2010, the District Educational Officer directed the Manager to continue the classes in the alternative accommodation. It is stated that a building was taken on rent and the school is functioning in that rented building. 8. While so, the Government passed Exhibit P17 order dated 11.8.2010 directing the petitioner to construct building in the remaining portion of the land to accommodate four class rooms with the required facilities. Exhibit P17 was addressed to the Director of Public Instruction to issue appropriate directions to the Manager. It is also stated in Exhibit P17 that if the direction is not complied with within six months, the school would be taken over by the Government. 9. Exhibit P17 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. There is also a prayer to declare that the petitioner is entitled to WPC No.31536/2010 5 close down the school. 10. One of the main grievance put forward by the petitioner is that he was not heard by the Government before passing Exhibit P17 order. The detailed representation submitted by him was also not considered. The report submitted by the Tahsildar was also not taken note of. According to the petitioner, all the affected parties should have been heard and a just and proper decision should have been taken by the Government in the matter. 11. Exhibit P17 is cryptic. There is no indication in Exhibit P17 that the Government took into account the representation submitted by the petitioner, the report made by the Tahsildar and the Director of Public Instruction and all that relevant facts. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Parent Teachers Association and the Headmistress were also not heard. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it WPC No.31536/2010 6 would be just and proper to direct the Government to consider the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the parties and taking note of all the relevant facts including the report submitted by the authorities. The views of the Parent Teachers Association and the teachers represented by the Headmistress would also be taken note of by the Government. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, Exhibit P17 is quashed. The Government shall consider the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner (Manager), the Parent Teachers Association, the teachers represented by the Headmistress and any other interested parties and shall pass a considered order after taking note of the ground realities, the future of the students and the interests of the teachers and the Manager. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions put forward by the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the Government (Respondent No.6). WPC No.31536/2010 7 14. Though Ext.P17 order is quashed and the matter is directed to be considered afresh, it is submitted by the petitioner that as per Exts.P3 and P16 the Manager had expressed his intention to close down the School. Exts.P3 and P16 shall be considered by the Director of Public Instruction. The Director of Public Instruction has to dispose of the matter in the light of Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act and Rule 24 of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the matter is decided in favour of the petitioner by the Director of Public Instruction, it is not necessary to consider the matter afresh by the Government as a consequence of quashing Ext.P17. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. 15. Therefore, as a first step, Exts.P3 and P16 applications submitted by the petitioner are to be considered by the Director of Public Instruction. The Director of Public Instruction shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and take appropriate decision in the matter. If the decision of the Director of Public Instruction is in favour of the WPC No.31536/2010 8 petitioner, it is not necessary for the Government to consider the question involved in Ext.P17 order and which was directed to be considered afresh as per this judgment. On the other hand, if the order to be passed by the Director of Public Instruction goes against the petitioner, the Government will have to consider the matter afresh consequent on the quashing of Ext.P17 as aforesaid. 16. It is submitted that the School was commenced 92 years back as a 'Kudipallikkoodam'. The 'Kudipallikkoodam' was established by the Church. It is true that at present there are only 19 students in the School. The Manager will also take into account the fact that the School was established about a century ago and shall explore the possibilities of getting an alternate accommodation in a different place, though not a place as important as the place in which the School was established, so that the students belonging to the poorer sections can continue their studies. I have expressed this not as a ground for denying the rights which the Manager has, but only as a desire WPC No.31536/2010 9 to continue the School which was established about a century ago. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl