IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 35523 of 2008(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.S.MURALEEDHARAN, SECRETARY, HINDI PRACHARA KENDRA, KODUNGALLUR - 680 664, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV.MR.S.SUJIN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 4. THE HINDI SAHYTHYA SAMMELAN, PRAYAG, ALLAHABAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 36084 OF 2008 AND WPC NO. 37127 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.35523/2008 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CENTRAL ACT XIII OF 1962. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.F/SRO/NCTE/1999-2000/9829 DTD. 16/07/1999. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.565/95/E.EDN. DTD. 30/11/1995. EXT.P4: COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.88/98/G.EDN. DTD. 17/03/1998. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LIST OF STUDENTS UNDERGOING THE STUDENT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL AS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.180/2008/G. EDN. DTD. 31/10/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). Nos.35523/2008-D, 36084/2008-U & 37127/2008-T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The common question raised in all these writ petitions is regarding the withdrawal of recognition of the Siksha Visarad Course introduced by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. The said order is produced as Ext.P6 in all the writ petitions. 2. The facts are narrated and documents are referred to as contained in W.P.(C).No.36084/2008. The petitioners are institutions conducting instructions in Siksha Visarad Course and students who have joined the said course. 3. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the respective institutions have been recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.) , and affiliated to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. It is a deemed University for conducting Siksha Visarad Course of one year duration from Academic year 2002. Ext.P3 produced shows the recognition granted by the N.C.T.E for conducting the said course. 4. The Siksha Visarad is a title which is being conferred by the Hindi Sahithya Sammelan, Allahabad (the third respondent), and they have W.P.(C) Nos.35523/2008, 36084/2008 & 37127/2008 -:2:- allowed certain centres to conduct the Siksha Visarad course and examination recognised by the N.C.T.E., and affiliated to the third respondent. 5. Exts.P4 to P5(b) have been produced to show that the course is being conducted in an orderly manner. 6. As far as Ext.P6 is concerned, the sole reason for its issuance is that going by letter referred to as item No.2 therein, the third respondent has informed the Government that they have been conducting courses only upto 2005 batch and they have recommended to cancel the recognition of Siksha Visarad course with effect from 2006 onwards. 7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Adv.Sri.T.M.Mohammed Yousef for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.36084/2008, the learned Senior Counsel Adv.Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan for the petitioners in W.P.(C). Nos.35523/2008 and 37127/2008 and the learned Government Pleader. 8. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the very letter which is relied upon in Ext.P6 is a forged one and the third respondent is not the author of the said letter. Therefore, this Court directed the respondents to produce all the relevant files in this matter and the Government files have been produced also. On a perusal of the files, it is found that even though a copy of the letter dated 10/11/2007 said to have W.P.(C) Nos.35523/2008, 36084/2008 & 37127/2008 -:3:- been sent by the third respondent is kept in the file, it is not seen whether the Government has conducted any enquiry as to the authorship of the said letter before passing Ext.P6. Of course, there are some other petitions filed by the rivals in the field stating that the course is not being conducted by the third respondent. Therefore, if at all any action was required in the matter, it should have been done only by conducting adequate enquiry with notice to the petitioners also. 9. Ext.P7 produced in W.P.(C).No.36084/2008 is a representation sent by the third respondent to the Government of Kerala dated 22/11/2008. Therein, they have disowned the letter dated 10/11/2007, referred to as item No.2 in Ext.P6. They have taken the stand that they have not recommended to the Government of Kerala for cancellation of recognition of the course. Their case appears to be that someone has deliberately made a fake letter fraudulently for unlawful gain. It is further pointed out in the letter that the course, Siksha Visarad is being conducted in the institutions recognised by the N.C.T.E and as per order dated 17/03/1998, the Government has ordered that the title Siksha Visarad will be recognised as an alternative training qualification for appointment as Hindi Teachers for Aided Upper Primary/High Schools. They have informed the Government that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is continuing the Siksha Visarad course and examination W.P.(C) Nos.35523/2008, 36084/2008 & 37127/2008 -:4:- and they have not stopped conduct of the said course. The course is being conducted only in the institutions recognised by the N.C.T.E and affiliated to them. The petitioners of W.P.(C).No.36084/2008 have filed Ext.P8 seeking review for a reconsideration of the matter and for cancellation of Ext.P6. 10. The issue therefore, is whether it was right on the part of the Government to cancel the recognition of Siksha Visarad course without hearing the petitioners and the third respondent in the matter, since the direction therein will adversely affect the students as well as the institutions. Whether the institutions have got infrastructure and facilities required to conduct the course is a different matter, and nothing prevents the Government from probing the issue. But when it is taking steps to recall the recognition, that could have been done only after considering various aspects in the matter and after finding whether the allegation that the third respondent is not conducting the course from 2006 onwards is correct or not. Going by Ext.P7 sent by the third respondent, it is evident that they are conducting the course even now and they are granting affiliation to institutions recognised by the N.C.T.E. In that view of the matter, Ext.P6 which has been passed without hearing any of the affected parties is quashed. There will be a direction to the Government to consider various W.P.(C) Nos.35523/2008, 36084/2008 & 37127/2008 -:5:- aspects in the matter, hear the petitioners as well as ascertain the views of the third respondent officially and only thereafter take a final decision in the matter. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of five months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment after hearing all parties. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms