Fr. Jose Mathew Parappallil v. The State of Kerala and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 8895 OF 2019`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` FR.JOSE MATHEW PARAPPALLIL MANAGER, ST. ANTONY'S HIGH SCHOOL, MUNDAKKAYAM EAST, IDUKKI DIST, PIN 686 513. BY ADVS. P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.V.A.HARITHA SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SHRI. ANOOP KRISHNA ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 3THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI-685 584 4THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI-685 584 SMT NISHA BOSE, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON25.07.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that he is the Manager of St Antony's High School, an Aided Private High School, governed by the provisions of the Kerala Education act, 1958, and the rules framed thereunder. 2. The above writ petition was filed on 21.03.2019 seeking to quash Exhibit P22 Government Order vide GO (MS) No.49/2017/G.Edn dated 14/06/2017 as per which the Government, by way of a policy decision, has ordered that for the academic year 2017-2018, the educational need shall be determined by Regional and State level committees and that the same shall be completed within the timeframe stipulated in the Government Order dated 5/4/2016. The petitioner has also sought to quash Exhibit P25 Government Order by which the Government took a policy decision not to grant Higher Secondary courses or upgradation to Higher Secondary Schools for the year 2018-2019. The petitioner contends that Exhibit P25 is in flagrant violation of the judgment rendered by this Court in **Manager, St.Sebastian’s High School, Thrissur v. State of Kerala and Ors.** [2015 (1) KHC 725]. 3. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner contends that St Anthony's High school started W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 3 functioning in the year 1979. The first batch of SSLC students passed out in the year 1982. Since then, the school has maintained an outstanding academic record. The school is having all facilities and infrastructure to start Plus Two courses as stipulated in orders issued by the Government of Kerala. It is stated that the School applied for sanction to start the Higher Secondary course in the year 1997. However, though the school fulfilled all the requisite norms and despite positive material about the educational backwardness of the area, the application submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the Government favorably. Later in the year 2000, the petitioner applied for sanction to start Higher Secondary School. The Government came out with Exhibit P2 order and included the petitioner school as one among the 62 schools selected for upgradation. However, Exhibit P2 Government Order was interfered with by this Court and directions were issued to the Government to take a decision in the matter of sanction of Higher Secondary courses after considering all 1429 applications which were pending before the Government in the light of the prevalent Government orders and in terms of the directions issued by this Court. When the Government did not act in terms of the directions issued by this court, several writ petitions were preferred before this court and by Exhibit P3 judgment dated 29/11/2000, the cases were W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 4 disposed of by this court, laying down the criteria for determining the educational needs of the area and directed the Government to act in terms of the directions. Though the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the petitioner, the same was dismissed by the Division Bench by Exhibit P4 judgment. The petitioner contends that in terms of the directions issued in Exhibit P3, the District Level committee conducted an inspection and gave a report favorable to the petitioner. However, the Government refused to sanction Plus Two courses in the school. 4. While so, in the year 2006, the Government took a policy decision to start new Higher Secondary Schools in certain districts in the State of Kerala. This was challenged before this Court by the petitioner and several other schools. By Exhibit P6 judgment dated 05/04/2006, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Government to consider the respective applications for grant of sanction at the appropriate stage. 5. The petitioner contends that in the light of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner entertained a legitimate expectation that sanction would be granted to commence Plus 2 courses. The Government came out with Exhibit P7 order inviting applications from various schools in 148 panchayats and thereafter issued Exhibit P8 notification fixing the criteria for W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 5 sanction of Higher Secondary Schools and for upgradation. As the petitioner satisfied all the requirements, they submitted Exhibit P9 application seeking upgradation. 6. Exhibit P7 and Exhibit P8 orders were challenged before this court and by judgment rendered by this Court in **Manager, Aided High School Parel, Muvattumoola, Malappuram vs State of Kerala** (2014 (1) KLJ 21) the Government Order and the notification were quashed. However, in appeal, the Division Bench, in the judgment reported as **State of Kerala Vs Manager, St Roch's school, Trivandrum and Others** (2014 (3) KLJ 125) interfered with the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge and directed the Government to grant sufficient opportunity to other schools in other districts also to start Plus Two courses if there is a requirement taking into account the need of the locality. 7. The petitioner contends that the petitioner's school meets all the requirements for upgradation. As against 380 students who pass SSLC from the petitioner school and the nearby schools, the total number of seats available in that Panchayath is only 100. Highlighting all these aspects, the predecessor of the petitioner filed a Writ Petition. A learned Single Judge of this Court considered the said writ petition along with some other petitioners W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 6 and rendered judgment which has been reported as **Manager, St.Sebastian’s High School, Thrissur v. State of Kerala and Ors** . [2015 (1) KHC 725]. However, the Government, in violation of the directions issued by this Court, took a policy decision not to sanction Higher Secondary Schools for the year 2017-2018. However, some other schools were given favorable treatment, and Higher Secondary courses were sanctioned. According to the petitioner, Exhibit P22 and Exhibit P25 orders are arbitrary and discriminatory and liable to be interfered with. It is therefore under these circumstances that this writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P22 and Exhibit P25 GOs and quash the same by issuing a writ of Certiorari; ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner’s school to start Higher Secondary courses in the school in accordance with Kerala Education Act and Rules framed thereunder and issue consequential orders in order to enable the petitioner’s school to start Higher Secondary courses from the next academic year; 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that in compliance with the directions issued in Exhibit P21 judgment, the Government constituted a two-level committee to determine the educational need in each District in the State of Kerala in the field of Higher Secondary education, one at the State Level and one at the Regional Level. As per W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 7 Exhibit P22 and Exhibit P25 order, the Government has taken a policy decision that no Higher Secondary Schools and batches need to be sanctioned for the year 2017-2018 and 2018-19, respectively. This decision was taken after examining the report of assessment of educational needs submitted by the State Committee and all other aspects of the subject. It is further stated that while sanctioning new Higher Secondary Schools/batches, the educational need is with reference to the time of sanctioning of the school/batch. Insofar as the assertion in the writ petition that certain other schools were granted batches, it is stated that batches were granted in Model Residential Schools which are run exclusively for scheduled caste/scheduled tribe students. The Government Orders were issued only for the upliftment of the downtrodden scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community. It is also stated that there was no educational need in the petitioner's school as sufficient number of seats were available. 9. In the additional counter filed by the first respondent, it is stated that based on the data available, many Plus One seats are lying vacant. The educational need shall be determined and the further course of action for the academic year 2021 will be commenced, and the Government shall declare its policy. If the Government on assessment finds that there is an educational W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 8 need, appropriate notification shall be issued. It is contended that, from Exhibit P27 report of the Regional Committee does not reveal that there is a need for additional batches in the petitioner's school. It is further stated that the Regional-level Committee report was verified, and the State-level Committee has not recommended the sanctioning of Higher Secondary batches in Idukki District. 10. Sri P. Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has been knocking on the doors of this Court for years, and directions have also been issued to the Government to conduct an assessment and sanction additional batches. According to the learned counsel, Exhibit P22 and P25 orders are in flagrant violation of the direction issued by this Court in **St Sebastian** ( supra). In spite of the fact that the school managed by the petitioner is the best performing school in Idukki District and is situated in a backward area, the Government has been ignoring the School while granting additional batches to less deserving schools. This is clearly discriminatory, contends the learned counsel. According to the learned counsel, picking and choosing one school or the other on extraneous considerations and not on merit is clearly a colourable exercise of power warranting interference by this Court. W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 9 11. The learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed the submissions. It is submitted that a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the very same issue in an appeal filed by the State against the judgment rendered by this Court and, after considering the entire facts, had disposed of the matter by issuing directions. According to the learned Government Pleader, though the directions were with respect to a school situated within Malappuram District, the principles laid down would apply on all fours in the instant case as well. 12. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the entire records. 13. I find that against the judgment rendered by this Court, issuing directions to the Government to sanction additional Batches, the State had preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and this Court had disposed of the matter by observing as follows. 13. Before dealing with the writ petition filed by the Manager, it is necessary to remind ourselves the principles to be kept in mind while dealing with a writ petition of this nature. Every citizen has a right to education under the Constitution and the State is under an obligation to establish educational institutions so as to enable citizens to enjoy the said right. The State may discharge the said obligation either W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 10 through State owned educational institutions or through private educational institutions recognised and regulated by the State [See **Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and Ors** , 1992 KHC 898]. If the State is not able to discharge the said obligation for reasons beyond its control through the State owned educational institutions, no doubt, the State is certainly entitled to discharge the said obligation through State recognised and regulated educational institutions including aided institutions. It is necessary to clarify in this context that the obligation of the State as enshrined in the Constitution is only to take necessary steps to cater to the educational needs of the citizens within the limits of its economic capacity, and it cannot be said that in the matter of evolving a policy and in the matter implementing the policy so evolved, the Government cannot take note of the financial implications involved [See **Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh** , (1993) 1 SCC 645 and **Modern School v. Union of India** , (2004) 5 SCC 583]. Needless to say, what is expected from the Government is that there has to be a fair decision in the matter of discharging the said constitutional obligation. 14. It is seen that this Court has noticed in **St.Sebastian's High School,** that there is no proper system in place in the State for assessment of educational need in the field of secondary education, and in the absence of a consistent and transparent policy, the allotment process of fresh and additional batches of higher secondary courses is always entangled in litigations. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court issued the following directions to the Government in the matter of consideration of applications for the grant of higher secondary courses: (i) The State Government shall evolve and put in place suitable machinery to determine the educational need in each district in the State in the field of higher W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 11 ## secondary education; (ii) The machinery to be set up by the State Government must be one that determines such educational need on an ongoing basis so that the educational need for any academic year is estimated at least a year in advance. (iii) Based on the determination of educational need, the State Government must periodically call for applications from educational agencies in the district concerned and take steps to sanction higher secondary courses in such districts. (iv) The criteria evolved by the State Government for sanctioning higher secondary courses must, inter alia, take into account the socially, educationally and economically backward areas in each district. (v) While considering applications in areas where an educational need has been determined as existing, the State Government shall give preference to those applicants who have been recommended for the grant of higher secondary course in the past, either through Government Orders or through judgments of this Court, but were not sanctioned Higher Secondary Courses only because there was no policy decision then taken by the State Government to sanction Higher Secondary Courses in the State, or on account of the then Government facing financial constraints. Such cases would have to be considered favourably for a grant, subject to the applicant concerned complying with the infrastructural and other requirements mandated by the Kerala Education Act and Rules. (vi) Insofar as I have directed that the State Government shall call for applications, based on the perceived educational need determined in any area, before considering a grant of higher secondary course to W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 12 any educational agency in the said area, it would be open to the petitioners herein to respond to any call for applications by the Government, as and when made, and the fact that they have preferred applications in the past or that any such application preferred has been rejected in the past shall be of no relevance in a consideration by the State Government of the merit of the fresh applications so preferred by the petitioners (vii) The State Government shall endeavour to complete the above exercise by 31.03.2016 for the next academic year and thereafter, sanction courses based on educational need by 31st March of every succeeding year so that no student is prejudicially affected in the pursuit of his higher secondary education in the State during the academic year 2016-17 or thereafter. It is seen that the Government has accepted the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in **St.Sebastian's High School,** and issued Ext.P4 order on 05.04.2016 constituting Regional Level Committees covering two Districts and a State Level Committee for assessment of the educational need of the State in the field of higher secondary education. It is directed in the said order that the Regional Level Committee shall furnish a report to the State Level Committee for the next academic year before 30[th] September every year and the State Level Committee shall scrutinize the report of the Regional Level Committees and submit a final report to the Government before 31[st] October every year. It was also stated in the said order that the Government will examine the report of the State Level Committee and take a decision for calling for applications to be set out in the detailed guidelines to be issued later and the entire exercise on the basis of the educational needs shall be completed within 31[st] March of the succeeding year. We have perused the judgment of this court in **St.Sebastian's High School** and we are in complete agreement with the said decision. Having regard to the directions issued by this Court in the said case and the W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 13 directions issued in Ext.P4 order issued by the Government in compliance with the directions of this court, we are also of the view that if the directions issued by this Court in the said case and the directions in Ext.P4 order are complied with, the process of allotment of higher secondary courses in the State would be consistent and transparent conforming to the constitutional requirements. 15. Now, let us deal with the writ petition filed by the Manager. At the outset, it is to be mentioned that in a situation of this nature, where there is educational need and shortage of facilities, if the Government is not taking any step to cater to the need, the right of persons who run educational institutions being one traceable only to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, they can seek at the most only directions to the Government to comply with the guidelines framed in this regard and nothing more. 16. Be that as it may, Ext.P7 order which is impugned in the writ petition is one passed on Ext.P1 application preferred by the petitioner before the Government on 20.05.2019 seeking orders sanctioning additional batches of higher secondary courses in the School. A reading of Ext.P1 application would show that the very premise on which the application is filed is that on an average, 750 students pass SSLC examination from the School itself and the School is able to accommodate only 200 among them in the higher secondary courses. As indicated by us, while dealing with W.A.No.271 of 2022, there is absolutely no basis for the grievance attempted to be ventilated in the representation, for admission to higher secondary courses in the State is made through a district-wise centralised allotment process based on merits and one cannot aspire to get admission in the very same school from which he/she has passed the SSLC examination unless he/she is meritorious enough to get admission in the said school, as the system in place is such that if there are more meritorious applicants for admission to a particular school, they will be preferred over the applicants from the very same school. That apart, in **St.Sebastian's High School,** this Court deprecated the practice of the Government entertaining individual W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 14 applications for grant of higher secondary batches, obviously, as it was found that such consideration of individual applications would jeopardise a consistent and transparent process of allotment of fresh or additional batches of higher secondary courses affecting the interests of the students as also rights of others. Again, as noted, pursuant to the direction issued by this court in **St.Sebastian's High School,** the Government issued Ext.P4 order prescribing the guidelines to be followed in the matter of granting higher secondary courses, and consideration of individual applications in the nature of one preferred by the petitioner would certainly derail the process initiated by the Government in terms of Ext.P4 order. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the decision of the Government in rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of additional batch of higher secondary courses in the school. 17. As noted, the main contention of the petitioner is that the Government is obliged to grant additional batches of higher secondary courses sought by the petitioner since the State Level Committee constituted by the Government pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in **St.Sebastian's High School** has recommended for grant of additional batches of higher secondary courses in the School. This argument cannot be accepted, as the Government is not bound by the report of the State Level Committee and the purpose of the report of the State Level Committee is only to enable the Government to take a fair decision in the matter and to make the process of allotment of higher secondary courses in various schools in the aided sector consistent and transparent. Another argument advanced is that since the Government has not invited applications as directed by this Court in **St.Sebastian's High School,** the petitioner is entitled to seek directions to the Government to sanction additional batches of higher secondary courses in the School to cater to the needs of the students. We do not find any substance in this argument either. As indicated, if the Government does not act upon the report of the State Level Committee and invites applications in compliance with the directions issued by the W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 15 Government, the petitioner can at the most seek directions to the Government to act upon the report of the State Level Committee and invite applications. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, sanctioning of additional batches in a few Higher Secondary Schools who have made individual representations before the Government and who have approached this Court challenging the decisions rejecting their representations will open up a Pandora's box, and the Government will be in a predicament in dealing with such applications in the light of the directions of this Court in **St.Sebastian's High School,** and Ext.P4 order is issued in compliance of the directions in the said case. The possibility of identically placed schools approaching this Court for identical reliefs granted to the petitioners cannot also be ruled out. Needless to say, as noted, all these are going to derail the implementation of the direction issued by this Court in **St.Sebastian's High School,** and the directions contained in Ext.P4 order. 18. Above all, it needs to be noted that in areas where policy decisions involving financial implications are to be taken by the Government, the scope of judicial review is limited and circumscribed. In such cases, the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy, and unless the policy so framed is so capricious or comes into conflict with constitutional or statutory provisions, the Court should not out- step its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive authority [See **M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P.** , ((1997)7 SCC 592]). 19. However, in the light of our finding that there is acute shortage of facilities in the field of higher secondary education in Malappuram District, we have no hesitation to hold that the Government is obliged to take a decision forthwith as to the manner in which it would cater to the needs of Malappuram District. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ appeals are disposed of directing the Government to W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 16 take a decision forthwith as to the manner in which it would cater to the needs in the field of higher secondary education in Malappuram District with due regard to the number of applications received during the previous years and the latest recommendations of the State Level Committee. If it is found that arrangements cannot be made otherwise than by granting additional batches in the existing schools in the aided sector, steps shall be initiated forthwith for grant of new and additional batches of higher secondary courses in aided sector as directed by this Court in **St.Sebastian's High School** , and as accepted by the Government in Ext.P4 order. 14. The Division Bench went on to hold that even when there is an educational need and a shortage of facilities, if the Government is not taking any step to cater to the need, the right of persons running the educational institutions being one traceable only to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, they can at the most seek only directions to the Government to comply with the guidelines framed and nothing more. This Court also held that there is no infirmity in the facts and circumstances of the said case in the decision of the Government rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of additional batch of Higher Secondary Courses. It was also held that the Government is not obliged to grant additional batches on the ground that the State Level Committee constituted by the Government has recommended the grant of additional batches, as the Government is not bound by such a report. The W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 17 purpose of the report is only to enable the Government to take a fair decision in the matter and to make the process of allotment of Higher Secondary Courses in various schools in the aided sector consistent and transparent. Finally, it was held that in areas where policy decisions involving financial implications are to be taken by the Government, the scope of judicial review is limited and circumscribed. Directions were accordingly issued to the Government to take a decision forthwith as to the manner in which it would cater to the needs in the field of higher education in Malappuram district with due regard to the number of applications received during the previous years and the latest recommendation of the State Level Committee. It was also ordered that if arrangements cannot be made otherwise than by granting additional batches in the existing schools in the aided sector, steps be initiated for grant of new and additional batches of Higher Secondary courses in the aided sector as directed by this Court in **St Sebastian** (supra). Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that the request made by the petitioner can also be considered in the light of the law laid down in **St.Sebastian** (supra) and in **State of Kerala and Ors v. Sreelal K.V. and Ors.** [W.A.No.271/2022]. W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 18 In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any grounds for quashing Exhibits P22 and P25. If the petitioner responds to the notification issued by the 1st respondent calling for application for sanctioning additional batches based on the committee reports, the 1st respondent to consider the same in the light of the observations in **St.Sebastian** (supra) and in **State of Kerala and Ors v. Sreelal K.V. and Ors.** [W.A.No.271/2022], and take a decision in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the judgments above. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** IAP W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 19 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8895/2019`** ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: ``` - `EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHANCELLOR DIOCESE OF KANJIRAPALLY PASTORAL CENTRE, KANJIRAPPALLY` - `EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GO(MS) NO. 209/2000/G.EDN DATED 24.6.2000` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.21676 OF 2000 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 29.11.2000 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 802 OF 2001 DATED 29.10.2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF ST.ANTONY'S HIGH SCHOOL, MUNDAKKAYAM` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 3837/2006 DATED 5.4.2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.185/2013/GE DATED 11.6.2013` - `EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.ACDC 3/16830/H.S.E/2013 DATED 17.6.2013` - `EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 17.6.2013` - `EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.6.2013` W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 20 |`EXHIBIT P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED`| |---|---| ||`12.9.2011 SUBMITTED TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF`| ||`MINISTER OF KERALA`| |`EXHIBIT P12`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LIST CONTAINING THE NUMBER`| ||`OF STUDENTS WHO WROTE SSLC EXAMINATION IN`| ||`THE YEAR 2014 IN VARIOUS SCHOOLS IN PEERMADE`| ||`CONSTITUENCY`| |`EXHIBIT P13`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LIST CONTAINING THE NUMBER`| ||`OF PLUS TWO SEATS IN VARIOUS SCHOOLS IN`| ||`PEERMADE CONSTITUENCY.`| |`EXHIBIT P14`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN`| ||`MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED 27.7.2014`| |`EXHIBIT P15`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT REPORT OF SSLC`| ||`RESULTS 2014 OF MATRAKKARA SCHOOL`| |`EXHIBIT P16`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT REPORT OF SSLC`| ||`RESULTS 2014 OF ST. ANTONY'S HIGHER`| ||`SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHENGALAM`| |`EXHIBIT P17`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.6.2013`| ||`ADDRESSED TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER`| ||`OF KERALA`| |`EXHIBIT P18`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY P.T.THOMAS,`| ||`MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT TO SRI.UMMAN CHANDY,`| ||`HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED`| ||`20.7.2013`| |`EXHIBIT P19`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE HON'BLE`| ||`CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA BY E.S BIJIMOL,`| ||`MEMBER, PERUMEDU DATED 30.7.2014`| |`EXHIBIT P20`|`TRUE COPY OF THE MAP OF KOKKAYAR VILLAGE-`| ||`PEERMED TALUK IN IDUKKI DISTRICT`| |`EXHIBIT P21`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.8.2015`| W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 21 ``` IN WPC NO.20466 OF 2014 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P22A TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.49/2017 G.EDN DATED 14.6.2017 ``` - `EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER (MS) NO 101/2017/G.EDN DATED 16.8.2017` - `EXHIBIT P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.3710/2017/G.EDN DATED 13.10.2017` - `EXHIBIT P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.53/2018/G.EDN DATED 7.5.2018` - `EXHIBIT P26 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2018 IN CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO.690 OF 2018` - `EXHIBIT P27 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.5.2016 ALONG WITH ENCLOSURE` - `EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.75/2016/G.EDN DATED 5/4/2016` - `EXHIBIT P29 PRINTOUT OF GOOGLE MAP SHOWING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN MELEKAVU IN KOTTAYAM DISTRICT AND MUNDAKKAYAM IN IDUKKI DISTRICT` - `EXHIBIT P30 COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF GOOGLE MAP SHOWING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN YENDAYAR IN KOTTAYAM DISTRICT TO MUNDAKKAYAM IN IDUKKI DISTRICT` - `EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF GOOGLE MAP SHOWING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN KOTTAYAM AND MUNDAKKAYAM` - `EXHIBIT P32 COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF GOOGLE MAP SHOWING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN KUTTIPLANGAD AND MUNDAKKAYAM.` W.P.(C) No.8895 of 2019 22 ``` EXHIBIT P34TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF SSLC RESULT FOR THE YEAR 2020 OF HOLLY FAMILY HIGH SCHOOL, INCHIYANI EXHIBIT P35TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF SSLC RESULT FOR THE YEAR 2020 OF ST.JOSEPH’S HIGH SCHOOL, KANNIMALA EXHIBIT P36TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF ONE ALLEN VARGHESE WHO COULD NOT TAKE ADMISSION FOR HIGHER SECONDARY COURSE. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: ``` ``` EXHIBIT R1(A)TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE OF THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2017-18 DATED 19.05.2017. EXHIBIT R1(B)TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE OF THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-19 DATED 28.12.2017. ANNEXURE R2(a)TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF 10TH STANDARD STUDENTS STRENGTH OF SCHOOLS ALL OVER KERALA AND ALSO DETAILS OF STUDENTS STRENGTH OF THOSE SCHOOLS ANNEXURE R2(b)TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF MINUTES DATED 06.02.2019 ANNEXURE R2(c)TRUE COPY OF LETTER FORWARDED TO JOINT DIRECTOR (ACADEMIC), HIGHER SECONDARY DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 02.03.2020 ANNEXURE R2(d)TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM ```