IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31262 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.P. ABDUL KAREEM, MANAGER, PUTHIYANGADI JAMATH HIGH SCHOOL, P.O. MADAI, KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31262/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to consider Ext.P1, an application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to open an unaided school. Petitioner submits that the application was made in response to Ext.P4 Government Order dated 13.6.2007. It is stated that the petitioner having made Ext.P1 application in response to Ext.P4, there is a corresponding obligation on the part of the respondents to consider Ext.P1 in accordance with law. 2. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, among the applications that were received in pursuance to Ext.P4, 16 applicants were shortlisted but however, that list has been interfered with by this court in WP(c).No.31262/2008 2 the judgment in WP(c).No.11126/2008 and connected cases. According to him, in view of the above judgment, the respondents are now required to consider the applications which were received in response to Ext.P4 order and if that be so, while undertaking that exercise, Ext.P1 is also liable to be considered along with the other applications. 3. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is opposed by the Government Pleader. According to him, in response to Ext.P4, though 89 applications were received and 16 were shortlisted, that list was interfered with by the learned Judge as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, for the reason that the applications received were not in compliance with the provisions contained in Chapter V of the KER. It is stated that in compliance with the statutory provisions, first the areas will be identified and notified and thereafter applications will have to be invited and that this position is settled by the apex court in the judgment reported in State of Kerala V. Prasad (2007 WP(c).No.31262/2008 3 (3) KLT 531. The effect of the submissions made by the Government Pleader is that, only in response to the fresh notification which is yet to be issued can the petitioner only make an application and that in that event only the respondents have a statutory obligation to consider the same. The position is canvassed by the Government Pleader is deserves to the accepted in the light of the apex court judgment referred to above. If that be so, there cannot be any direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner. 4. However, it will be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application as and when fresh notifications are issued inviting applications in compliance with the provisions contained in Chapter V KER. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.31262/2008 4