Sudharjunan Vs. Secretary,general Education Department - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1087175
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnSep-05-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
AppellantSudharjunan
RespondentSecretary,general Education Department
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice c.t.ravikumar thursday, the 5th day of september 2013/14th bhadra, 1935 wp(c).no. 21493 of 2013 (j) ---------------------------- petitioner: -------------- sudharjunan, aged 49 years s/o.govindan, kripa cottage, kunninvila kulathoor, uchakada p o, neyyattinkara thiruvananthapuram-695506 by advs.sri.r.t.pradeep sri.p.bijimon respondents: ----------------- 1. secretary,general education department government secretariat, thiruvananthapuram-695001 2. director directorate of higher secondary education thiruvananthapuram-695001 by government pleader smt.a.lowsy this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on 05-09-2013, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 21493 of 2013 (j) ---------------------------- appendix petitioner's exhibits --------------------------- p1:-the copy of government order go(ms)no 272/12 dtd 7/9/2012. p2:-the copy of representation dtd 6/5/2013 by the parents teachers association before education minister p3:-the copy of the recommendation dtd 12/7/2013 of 2nd respondent p4:-the copy of order dtd. 7/8/2013 of ist respondent. respondents' exhibits: nil ------------------------------- // true copy // tks p.s. to judge c.t.ravikumar, j.---------------------------- w.p.(c)no.21493 of 2013 ---------------------------- dated 5th september, 2013 judgment the petitioner is the president of parents teachers association of government vocational higher secondary school, kulathoor. the school in question lies within kulathoor grama panchayat. this writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash ext.p1 to the extent it limits the allocation of additional batch in higher secondary course to the aforesaid school to one year. the further prayer is for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to ext.p4 and to quash it. there is also a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow continuation of additional batch of science allotted to the aforesaid school as per ext.p1.2. the contention of the petitioner is that the school in question lies within a coastal line panchayat and the majority of the students in the said school hail from lower strata of the society. the educational need of the locality requires retention of the additional batch granted temporarily as per ext.p1, it is contended. it is further contended that government have sanctioned the additional batch of science in the said school along with other government higher wp(c).no.21493/2013 2 secondary schools considering the requirement and therefore it should not have been limited to one year. the further contention is that there is legitimate expectation of retention of the additional batch on the recommendation made by the second respondent as is obvious from ext.p3. in short, according to the petitioner, ext.p4 is in derogation of the legitimate expectation of the school as also its students to have the additional batch of science. as per ext.p4, the request for continuation of the additional batch granted to the school in question as per ext.p1 was declined by the government.3. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned government pleader.4. evidently, the school in question is a government vocational higher secondary school. true that taking into account the circumstances then obtained government passed an order on 7.9.2012 granting additional batches, on temporary basis, to certain schools including the school in question. there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that granting of additional batches in higher secondary schools, be it government sector or in aided sector, is a matter falls within the policy of the government and the scope for wp(c).no.21493/2013 3 interference with such an order is therefore, very limited. obviously, it is on the strength of ext.p1 that an additional batch in the higher secondary course in science was started in the school in question. at that point of time itself it was known to all, that the said sanction is only temporary in nature. in other words, it was evident that admission of students to any subsequent batch viz., towards the additional batch sanctioned temporarily, would not be possible unless specifically ordered to the contrary. the parents teachers association of the said school in which the petitioner is the president is of the view that the additional batch granted to the said school is liable to be retained on the ground of legitimate expectation. i am at a loss to understand as to how ext.p1 can be a foundation for such a legitimate expectation when ext.p1 in explicit terms made it clear that the sanction of additional batch is on a temporary basis. there is no case for the petitioner that those admitted into the first year of the course in the additional batch based on ext.p1 are denied opportunity or would be denied opportunity to complete the higher secondary course. true that, as per ext.p3, a recommendation has been made by the second respondent for retention of the additional batch. but, essentially, it is for the government to take an ultimate decision in this matter. at any rate, that cannot confer any legal right to the petitioner and in that matter to anybody, to claim for continuance of wp(c).no.21493/2013 4 the additional batch as a matter of right. government after considering the request as also ext.p3 now, took a decision not to permit continuation and also not to grant a permanent sanction for additional batch in the school in question. in such circumstances, the parents teachers association could not, as a matter of right, claim that despite the financial constraints of the government, the government should be compelled to grant sanction for continuation of additional batch or to permanently allot an additional batch in the higher secondary school in question. i do not find any illegality in the order passed by the government. no enabling provision has been brought to my notice to substantiate the claim by the petitioner. in the circumstances the decision of the government in ext.p1 to grant an additional batch to the said school only for a limited period of one year and also the decision in ext.p4 cannot be held as illegal. in the above circumstances, this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. sd/- c.t.ravikumar judge tks
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/14TH BHADRA, 1935 WP(C).No. 21493 of 2013 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SUDHARJUNAN, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.GOVINDAN, KRIPA COTTAGE, KUNNINVILA KULATHOOR, UCHAKADA P O, NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695506 BY ADVS.SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.P.BIJIMON RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. SECRETARY,GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.LOWSY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21493 of 2013 (J) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------------- P1:-THE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER

GO(MS)NO 272/12 DTD 7/9/2012. P2:-THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 6/5/2013 BY THE PARENTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION BEFORE EDUCATION MINISTER P3:-THE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DTD 12/7/2013 OF 2ND RESPONDENT P4:-THE COPY OF ORDER

DTD. 7/8/2013 OF IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.21493 of 2013 ---------------------------- Dated 5th September, 2013 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the President of Parents Teachers Association of Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Kulathoor. The school in question lies within Kulathoor Grama Panchayat. This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 to the extent it limits the allocation of additional batch in Higher Secondary Course to the aforesaid school to one year. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Ext.P4 and to quash it. There is also a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow continuation of additional batch of science allotted to the aforesaid school as per Ext.P1.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the school in question lies within a coastal line Panchayat and the majority of the students in the said school hail from lower strata of the society. The educational need of the locality requires retention of the additional batch granted temporarily as per Ext.P1, it is contended. It is further contended that Government have sanctioned the additional batch of science in the said school along with other Government Higher WP(C).No.21493/2013 2 Secondary Schools considering the requirement and therefore it should not have been limited to one year. The further contention is that there is legitimate expectation of retention of the additional batch on the recommendation made by the second respondent as is obvious from Ext.P3. In short, according to the petitioner, Ext.P4 is in derogation of the legitimate expectation of the school as also its students to have the additional batch of science. As per Ext.P4, the request for continuation of the additional batch granted to the school in question as per Ext.P1 was declined by the Government.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.

4. Evidently, the school in question is a Government Vocational Higher Secondary School. True that taking into account the circumstances then obtained Government passed an order on 7.9.2012 granting additional batches, on temporary basis, to certain schools including the school in question. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that granting of additional batches in Higher Secondary Schools, be it Government sector or in Aided sector, is a matter falls within the policy of the Government and the scope for WP(C).No.21493/2013 3 interference with such an order is therefore, very limited. Obviously, it is on the strength of Ext.P1 that an additional batch in the Higher Secondary course in Science was started in the school in question. At that point of time itself it was known to all, that the said sanction is only temporary in nature. In other words, it was evident that admission of students to any subsequent batch viz., towards the additional batch sanctioned temporarily, would not be possible unless specifically ordered to the contrary. The Parents Teachers Association of the said school in which the petitioner is the President is of the view that the additional batch granted to the said school is liable to be retained on the ground of legitimate expectation. I am at a loss to understand as to how Ext.P1 can be a foundation for such a legitimate expectation when Ext.P1 in explicit terms made it clear that the sanction of additional batch is on a temporary basis. There is no case for the petitioner that those admitted into the first year of the course in the additional batch based on Ext.P1 are denied opportunity or would be denied opportunity to complete the Higher Secondary Course. True that, as per Ext.P3, a recommendation has been made by the second respondent for retention of the additional batch. But, essentially, it is for the Government to take an ultimate decision in this matter. At any rate, that cannot confer any legal right to the petitioner and in that matter to anybody, to claim for continuance of WP(C).No.21493/2013 4 the additional batch as a matter of right. Government after considering the request as also Ext.P3 now, took a decision not to permit continuation and also not to grant a permanent sanction for additional batch in the school in question. In such circumstances, the Parents Teachers Association could not, as a matter of right, claim that despite the financial constraints of the Government, the Government should be compelled to grant sanction for continuation of additional batch or to permanently allot an additional batch in the Higher Secondary School in question. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Government. No enabling provision has been brought to my notice to substantiate the claim by the petitioner. In the circumstances the decision of the Government in Ext.P1 to grant an additional batch to the said school only for a limited period of one year and also the decision in Ext.P4 cannot be held as illegal. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS