IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33494 of 2007(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THE MANAGER, N.L.P.SCHOOL, MANALI, P.O.CHIRANELLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAVIKRISHNAN FOR R.1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.33494/2007 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER, G.O. DTD. 23/02/2006 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. EXT.P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 6/07/2006 IN WP(C) NO.16197/2005 OF THIS HON.COURT. EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 28/03/2006 IN WP(C)NO.9142/2006 OF THIS HON.COURT. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 1/06/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 16/10/2006 ISSUED BY THE D.E.O., THRISSUR. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 8/12/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 21/12/2006 IN WP(C) NO.34226/2006 OF THIS HON.COURT. EXT.P9: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 20/02/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 13/04/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11TH SEPT. 2007 IN WP(C) NO.33964/2006 OF THIS HON.COURT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DTD. 14/07/2003 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 12/05/2004 OF THE SUPER CHECK CELL ISSUED BY THE D.P.I. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 2/05/2005 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. Kss ..2/- ..2.. WPC.NO.33494/2007 K EXT.P15: COPY OF ORDER, G.O.DTD. 4/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER DTD. 20/09/2004 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE D.P.I. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 8/12/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVT. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. DTD. 9/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P20: COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE GIVEN TO MI.SS.DIVYA DAVIS. EXT.P21: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE HEADMISTRESS, LADY IMMACULATE G.H.S., CHOONDAL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33494/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P19, an order passed by the Government rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the staff fixation orders for the years 2003-04,2004-05,2005-06 in respect of the School of which the petitioner is the Manager. 2. Counsel for the petitioner takes exception to the findings in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the impugned order. 3. In paragraph 6, it has been held that, after excluding 6 pupils, whose admission is stated to be bogus, the actual roll strength in the 2nd standard for the year 2004-05 comes to only 49, for which only one class division is admissible. In so far as this finding is concerned, counsel for the petitioner refers to me the roll strength, verified WP(c).No.33494/07 2 strength and effective strength of standard-II mentioned in paragraph 2, which is in contradiction with the figures as found in paragraph 6 referred to above. Though, in this behalf specific pleadings have been raised in the writ petition, no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming in the counter affidavit. This contradiction itself calls for interference with the findings in paragraph 6. The next objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the exception taken by the Government in regard to the ten students who were admitted based on the declaration of their date of birth made by their parents. It would appear that the Government has been taking the view that only on the basis of the birth certificates could admissions be granted. This is opposed to the statutory provisions contained in Chapter VI Rule 1 of KER. This court has taken the view in the judgments in WP(c).Nos. 9142/06 and 33964/06 that so long as Chapter VI Rule 1 of KER provides that in the WP(c).No.33494/07 3 absence of birth certificate it is permissible to admit students acting upon the declaration made by the parents, the admissions cannot be interfered with for the mere reason that the same has been granted accepting the declaration made by the petitioner. Therefore for that reason also Ext.P19 deserves to be set aside and I do so. The matter shall be reconsidered by the first respondent with notice to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.33494/07 4