IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15936 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RIYAS.E.R, THANOOJA MANZIL, PUTHENKADAVU, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MASOONATH BEEVI, NIZAM MANZIL, KANIAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. NASEERA.M.P., EMERALD APARTMENT A-2, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. NAJEEBA.M.P, KHADER MANZIL, KARIMPUVILA, THIRUVALLAM, POONTHURA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAMLA BEEGAM.A, MANAGER, MUSLIM BOYS HIGH SCHOOL AND MUSLIM GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PRINCIPAL, MUSLIM GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KANIAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R1 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R1 SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR R1 SRI. SANDESH RAJA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R2, R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 15936 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayer:- “Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent Principal to admit the 12 students each recommended by four families in the quota ear marked for the management in accordance with the scheme.” The first respondent who is the manager of Muslim Boys High School and Muslim Girls Higher Secondary School, Kaniyapuram has filed a statement in this writ petition. Paragraph 3 therein reads thus:- “True it is that 48 students can be admitted to the Higher Secondary School in the management quota and each of the 4 branches of the legal heirs of the original founder are entitled to admit 12 students of their choice. The first respondent is willing to accommodate the students so picked up by the 4 branches in the management quota. But the applications so received have to be signed by the first respondent as the Manager before the fourth respondent Principal acts on the same lest some mischief is committed in the admission process.” 2. It is thus obvious from the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent that he has absolutely no objection with respect to the working out of Ext.P1 scheme. The said claim permits the four branches of the legal heirs of the original WPC.15936/2010 : 2 : founder of the school to admit 48 students to the Higher Secondary school Plus One Course. In other words, each family is entitled to admit 12 students as against the aforesaid Management Quota. It is evident that it is for operating the said scheme and for permitting the family to which the petitioner belongs to recommend 12 students for admission to Plus One Course that this writ petition has been filed. In the light of the above extracted portion from the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is evident that the first respondent has got no objection with respect to the same. Therefore, This writ petition is closed recording the above extracted statement made in Paragraph 3 of the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent. Consequently, it is made clear that each of the 4 branches of legal heirs of the original founder would be entitled to admit 12 students on their choice against the Management Quota of 48. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma