IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1277 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6741/2007 Dated 06/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- P.ABDUL REHMAN, MANAGER, AL-AMEEN SCHOOL, KOPA, HIDAYATH NAGAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671122. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.1277 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the Manager of a School, which was an unrecognised school. When the Director of Public Instruction (for short 'DPI') and the Government took steps for reopening new schools in various areas including the area where the appellant's School is run, he applied for recognition of the L.P. and U.P. wings of his School. The Government approved the list forwarded by the DPI and the same was published as per Ext.P1. But, an error occurred in that list concerning the appellant's School. The appellant wanted recognition of U.P. School with L.P. Section. But, instead of L.P and U.P. school, what was granted was U.P. and High School. On the motion of the appellant, the Director of Public Instruction again took steps and published an erratum notification to correct the said mistake. All the proceedings were completed and the matter was forwarded to the Government for its approval. When the Government slept over the matter, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court by Ext.P3 judgment directed the Government to take a decision in the matter. The Government by Ext.P4 order dated. 29.5.2007 W.A.No.1277/2009 2 decided not to take any further steps. The Government relied on its policy not to sanction any aided or recognised schools in the State for the time being. Challenging the said order, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Prasad [2007 (3)KLT 531], dismissed the Writ Petition. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, submitted the decision in Prasad's case (supra) has nothing to do with the present case. That was the case, where a person applied for recognition/upgradation of a school without there being a list published by the DPI for the same. A Division Bench of this Court, relying on the fact that the Government have allowed similar applications, directed to allow the application of the writ petitioner therein. The Supreme Court reversed the Division Bench decision of this Court, by the decision in Prasad's case (supra). The learned counsel also submitted that once Ext.P2 erratum notification was published and the DPI recommends the same, the Government is bound to take a final decision in the matter. But, we think Ext.P4 decision W.A.No.1277/2009 3 of the Government is fully supported by the provisions of Rule 2B of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. 3. Rule 2B of Chapter V of the KER reads as follows: “2B: Review of orders by Government. (1) The Government may, either suo motu or on the application of any party interested, review, confirm, modify or cancel any decisions and pass such orders as they may deem fit: Provided that in the public interest or for the larger interest of the State, Government may exercise such powers without giving notice to the parties likely to be affected, if Government are satisfied that there is any urgency. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, Government may take a general policy decision taking into account the various factors for opening and recognition of schools and with due regard to the overall finances of the State, that no recognised or aided schools shall be opened for a year or for any specified period. (3) Notwithstanding any of the provisions contained in these rules, even if cases where steps under rule 2A of Chapter V, are completed, Government shall not be obliged to take further steps commencing from rule II, and Government shall be at W.A.No.1277/2009 4 liberty to stop the exercise at any stage, if they feel that it is in the public interest, or in the larger interest of the State, or in the interest of the policy that is pursued by Government, and pass such order as Government deems fit under the circumstances.” (emphasis supplied) The above Rule is a complete answer to the contentions of the appellant. The Government can take a policy decision and always decide not to grant recognition to any school, even if, the proceedings for the same have reached any advanced stage. In view of the above position, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps