IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 19481 of 2009(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C. SASIDHARAN NAIR, MANAGER, SREE SETHU PARVATHI BHAI HIGH SCHOOL, KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN, SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. GOVT. OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.R. GANESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19481 of 2009(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF ATTINGAL EDUCATION DISTRICTS. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE ATTINGAL EDUCATIONAL DISTRICTS PUBLISHED IN DESABHIMANI DAILY DATED 21/05/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 05/01/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/06/2009 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13/06/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/11/2007 IN WP(C) NO. 20500/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/01/2008 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE QUESTION AND ANSWER ON THE FLOOR OF THE ASSEMBLY DATED 10/07/2009. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/06/2010. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/06/2010. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE STUDENTS AVAILABLE IN THE SCHOOL. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/06/2010. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 20/07/2010. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE NEWS PAPER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 19481 of 2009-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the Manager of a High School, is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order by which the request made by the petitioner to sanction Higher Secondary Course in his school during the academic year 2008-2009 was rejected. Mainly, it is contended that the petitioner was an applicant for upgradation of the school in the light of the scheme framed by the Government as per Ext.P3, in respect of Tsumani affected area. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt. Pleader. 3. The petitioner's school is situated in Kadakkavoor Panchayat within Attingal Education District. It is the case of the petitioner that the locality is a Tsumani affected area and rehabilitation steps are being taken by the Government. It is pointed out that 1493 students of the petitioner's school are getting special grant at the rate of Rs.3600/- per annum to study up to 10th standard. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Government in that regard. It is also stated that the school is situated in a backward area where most of the students are belonging to Scheduled Caste community. Ext.P4 is the copy of the letter issued by the Collector by which the Collector wpc 19481/2009 2 sanctioned another amount of Rs.9,38,700/- from the Prime Minister's fund as they are studying in a school which is hit by Tsumani. 4. All the claims of petitioner are based on the clauses contained in Ext.P5. Relying upon them, the petitioner submitted an application for upgradation of the school and approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20500/2007 seeking for a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on his application. This Court disposed of the said writ petition as per Ext.P6 judgment. This Court observed that it is open for the petitioner to rely upon Ext.P5 herein and advance arguments on its basis. The petitioner filed detailed notes of argument before the Government as per Ext.P7. 5. In Ext.P8, the Government took the view that the Government has taken no steps to sanction /upgrade Higher Secondary Schools during the academic year 2008-2009. It is observed that the petitioner can taken up the matter as and when applications are invited for sanctioning of Higher Secondary Courses in the aided sector. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reading of Ext.P5 will show that the Government had to consider separately the sanctioning/upgrading of schools in Tsumani affected areas. My attention was invited to clause (1) contained in internal page 3 of Ext.P5. Sub- wpc 19481/2009 3 clause 2(b) states as follows: “b) L.P. / U.P. / High Schools will be sanctioned/upgraded in Tsumani affected areas provided that it is found after an objective assessment that there are no sufficient educational facilities in the particular area and subject to the provisions in the Kerala Education Rules.” It is pointed out that the same will enable a high school like that of the petitioner's to be upgraded, being a school in a Tsumani affected area. It is therefore submitted that the view taken by the Government in Ext.P8 cannot be supported. The petitioner is also relying upon Ext.P9 which is a reply given in the State Legislature to one of the questions, which according to the learned counsel, replies that the policy of the Government not to upgrade high schools is excluding Tsumani affected areas and grama panchayats wherein no other higher secondary schools are there. 7. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. In para 10 of the counter affidavit, the argument raised by the petitioner relying upon clause 2(b) of Ext.P5 is met, by saying that the relevant provision in Ext.P5 order which relates to upgradation of schools in tsumani area is detailed in the preceding paragraph in clause 2(b). The stand taken is that as far as Tsumani affected area is concerned, the Government only intended to sanction or upgrade to a High School. That means wpc 19481/2009 4 sanctioning a new High School or upgrading U.P. school to a High School. In other words, the upgradation of a High School to a Higher Secondary School in a tsumani affected area was not at all a contemplation by the Government in Ext.P5 order. It is further explained that this is apparent from clause 2(c) which is detailed immediately after clause 2(b) in page 4 of Ext.P5 order. The same deals with upgradation of High Schools to Higher Secondary Schools in northern districts of the State and that in clause 2(c) there is no mention regarding upgradation of a High School to a Higher Secondary School in a tsumani affected area. 8. There cannot be any dispute that sanctioning of Higher Secondary Schools afresh by upgrading High Schools is governed by various Government Orders. The petitioner evidently submitted an application based on Ext.P5, seeking upgradation. As far as upgradation of High Schools are concerned, evidently clause 2(c) provides for upgradation of High Schools in Palakkad, Malappuram, Kozhikode, Wayanad, Kannur and Kasaragod Districts. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as tsumani affected areas are concerned, clause 2(b) will squarely apply. Even though the contention is attractive, a close reading of clause 2(b) of Ext.P5 reveals that what is thought of by the Government is sanctioning/upgradation of L.P. / U.P. / High Schools. That means High wpc 19481/2009 5 Schools will be sanctioned or will be granted in Tsumani affected areas by way of upgradation of L.P./U.P. schools. It does not provide for upgradation of High School as Higher Secondary. Of course, the Government can provide a scheme for sanctioning of Higher Secondary Schools by upgrading High Schools in Tsumani affected areas, as a separate item, but still when we are confronted with the Government Orders with regard to sanctioning of various schools, a uniform procedure is envisaged therein. The issue with regard to sanctioning and upgradation of Higher Secondary Schools was considered by this Court in various cases and every year the Government had been taking the stand that in terms of the policy alone such schools can be sanctioned in aided or unaided sector. Therefore, unless and until there is a policy to sanction Higher Secondary Schools in aided sector, no person who is managing a High School, can suo motu submit an application for upgradation. That is the import of Ext.P8 order that is now passed by the Government. 9. Of course, being a tsumani affected area, the area wherein the school of the petitioner is situated, may be eligible for a separate consideration. But that also is a policy matter for the Government to consider. In that view of the matter as the right of the petitioner to submit an application in terms of the notification is protected by Ext.P8 order, I do wpc 19481/2009 6 not think that the petitioner has got a grievance as on today in respect of Ext.P8 order. The scheme under Ext.P5 having been explained by the Government in the counter affidavit, the plea raised by the petitioner that as far as tsumani affected area is concerned, the school of the petitioner should get a different consideration is only a misconception, because Ext.P5 does not evidently contemplate such a policy. 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed upholding Ext.P8 order. But if there is any change of the scheme or if the Government comes up with a notification, the petitioner can file an application in terms of it. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/