Case: The Manager Palathingal A.M.L.P. School, Parappanangadi Vs. Sethumadhavan P.K.

3. The undisputed facts are that the appellant school was a junior primary school up to the level of Class IV. Vide order dated 16th June, 2015 the appellant school was upgraded to the level of upper primary school i.e. it was permitted to run from Class V to Class VIII also. The order of the government dated 16th June, 2015 permitting the school to be upgraded was challenged by respondent No.1, who is the Manager of a school being run in the vicinity. The main ground of challenge was that the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (for short `KER), had not been followed and no notice was given to the schools in the vicinity to raise any objection with regard to the upgradation. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the procedure prescribed in Rule 2 of Chapter V of KER was not followed. The order of the State Government was set aside but permission was given to the appellant school to permit the students already admitted, to continue their education in the school till the next academic year. The learned Single Judge also directed that it would be open to the Government to take a fresh decision in the matter after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 2 of Chapter V of KER. The appellant filed Writ Appeal No.669 of 2016 which was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
A perusal of the order dated 16th June, 2015 shows that it is a detailed order and the appellant school had made a request that to meet the needs of the children of the locality it may be permitted to be upgraded as an upper primary school. In the order it is mentioned that the appellant school is situated in an economically backward area and the students mainly belonged to the minority Muslim community.It appears that the attention of the High Court was not drawn to the last two paragraphs of the impugned order which makes specific reference to Rule 2 and Rule 2A of Chapter V of KER as well as Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER and the conscious decision of the State to relax the rigours of the rules.t appears that the attention of the High Court was not drawn to the last two paragraphs of the impugned order which makes specific reference to Rule 2 and Rule 2A of Chapter V of KER as well as Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER and the conscious decision of the State to relax the rigours of the rules.In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition.