IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16716 of 2009(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DEENUL ISLAM SABHA GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANNUR CITY-670003, REP. BY THE MANAGER, B.P.FAROOQUE. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RANI DIOTHIMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.16716/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DEENUL ISLAM SABHA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE. P2:- COPY OF THE BYE LAWS OF DEENUL ISLAM SABHA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3/2008 DTD. 31.3.2008. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 31.3.2008. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13119/08 DTD. 11.4.08. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3.3012/08/K.DIS. DTD. 21.6.2008. P7:- COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1985/2009/G.EDN. DTD. 23.5.2009. P8:- COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1853/99/G.EDN. DTD. 19.4.1999. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B4/14493/09 DTD.16.9.09. P10:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 13.8.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.16716/2009-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge made by the Manager of a school is against the order passed by the Government produced as Ext.P7 regarding the rejection of approval of appointment of Headmistress of the School. 2. The petitioner's case is that the school was established by a sabha in the year 1985 which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Ext.P1 is the copy of the Constitution and Ext.P2 is the copy of the bye-law. It is pointed out that it was established for the promotion and spread of education among the socially and educationally backward Muslims of Kannur and to establish and to run both religious and educational institutions as well as for the religious and social upliftment of the Muslim community. A vacancy arose on 31/03/2008 consequent on the retirement of Shri P.M.Bhaskaran as Headmaster. The Manager appointed Smt.K.M.Sabira in exercise of the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The approval was rejected by the second respondent as W.P.(C). No.16716/2009 -:2:- per Ext.P6 which was challenged before the Government. Ext.P7 order passed by the Government shows that by relying upon the report of the District Educational Officer, Kannur the revision petition was disposed of. Finally, it is stated that the Management could not produce any valid documents/certificates in support of their claim as a minority institution. It is also observed that unless the minority right of an educational institution is established and proved, it cannot make appointment/promotions in the pretext of minority status. 3. It is a case where the petitioner relies upon Exts.P1 and P2 to contend for the position that the Sabha is entitled for minority rights. Evidently, the Government ought to have considered the matter in the light of the objects of the Institution as well as other provisions contained in the bye-laws and Constitution. Nothing has been independently considered by the Government and when the Government itself has to consider the matter, a conclusion based on the report of the District Educational Officer alone was also not proper. The District Educational Officer W.P.(C). No.16716/2009 -:3:- has not obviously gone into the objects of the Institution as contained in the Constitution and the bye-laws. The points that are contained in the report of the District Educational Officer, if any, are also not disclosed in Ext.P7. Apart from that it is pointed out by the learned counsel that the insistence that the Manager should have obtained a certificate also is not required in the light of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The claim will have to be considered in the light of the various documents relied on by the petitioner. 4. In that view of the matter, Ext.P7 is quashed. There will be a direction to the Government to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Interim orders passed by this Court will continue till such orders are passed. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms