High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-10Writ petition allowed; admission to the petitio...

Jayasree (Petitioner) v. Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram; Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad; Assistant Educational Officer, Alathur; Manager, Seetharam Up School, Kunisseri; Headmaster, Seetharam Up School, Kunisseri

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 18842 of 2016 (E)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V. Chitambaresh
Judgment Date: 2016-06-10
Court Decision / Holding: The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; admission to the petitioner’s daughter to Seetharam UP School, subject to otherwise qualified status; Ext.P4 quashed; no costs permitted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jayasree

Respondents

1. Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram
2. Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad
3. Assistant Educational Officer, Alathur
4. Manager, Seetharam Up School, Kunisseri
5. Headmaster, Seetharam Up School, Kunisseri

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Dr. George Abraham
• Sri. Lindons C. Davis

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. T. Ramaprasad Unni (Senior Government Pleader)
• Sri. K. Mohanakannan
• Smt. A.R. Pravitha

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jayasree, the petitioner, sought admission for her five-year-old daughter Anusree to Standard I at Seetharam Upper Primary School in Palakkad district, while her elder son Arun already studied in Standard I at the same school. The headmaster denied the application (Ext.P4) on the ground that the Education Department’s permission was required and cites that girl students are not normally admitted to the lower primary section of this mixed institution. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4, contending that Rule 12 of Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) requires primary schools to be treated as mixed and admission be open to both boys and girls unless the Director grants an exemption for special circumstances. The respondents, including the school managers, defend the practice of excluding girls from lower primary and point to nearby alternative schools as a justification, arguing that exemption is not necessary in their case. The court examined Rule 12 and traced its interpretation in Rt. Rev. Mark Netto v. Government of Kerala (1978 KLT 798), noting that primary schools are deemed mixed and exemptions are exceptional. The court held Ext.P4 to be an arbitrary misreading of Rule 12, quashed it, and directed admission if the child is otherwise qualified, aligned with Article 21-A and the Right to Education Act, 2009. The petition was allowed with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 12, Chapter VI, Kerala Education Rules, 1959Rule 2, Chapter II, Kerala Education Rules, 1959Article 21-A, Constitution of IndiaRight of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that Rule 12 of Chapter VI KER requires all primary schools to be treated as mixed and admission to such schools must be open to both genders. Ext.P4 wrongly insists on education department permission and misreads Rule 12, which allows exemption only under special circumstances by the Director. The petitioner contends that Seetharam UP School is co-educational and that denying admission to a five-year-old girl in the lower primary is inconsistent with Rule 12 and with Article 21-A and the Right to Education Act, 2009. She further argues that the elder brother already attends the school, and there are no justifiable grounds to refuse admission. The petitioner asks the court to quash Ext.P4 and direct admission provided the child is otherwise qualified.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that although the school is listed as mixed, no girl has been admitted to the lower primary for years, and the absence of girls is not necessarily a violation given the possibility of exemptions under Rule 12. They emphasize that Ext.P4 reflects a need for departmental permission for admitting girls in lower primary and argue that such permissions may be restricted in special circumstances if there are nearby alternative schools. They rely on the discretionary power of the Director under Rule 12 and the need to consider local circumstances, including the absence of girls in the lower primary section and the availability of other educational options.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rt. Rev. Mark Netto v. Government of Kerala	1978 KLT 798	Positive	Used to interpret Rule 12 of Chapter VI KER; supports the view that primary schools are to be treated as mixed and that exemptions are exceptional and discretionary.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jayasree (Petitioner) v. Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram; Deputy Director of Education, Palakkad; Assistant Educational Officer, Alathur; Manager, Seetharam Up School, Kunisseri; Headmaster, Seetharam Up School, Kunisseri and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/20TH JYAISHTA, 1938 WP(C).No. 18842 of 2016 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- JAYASREE AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. LATE PONNUKUTTAN, CHAYAMOOCHI HOUSE, KUNISSERI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS RESPONDENTS: - ------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PALAKKAD - 678 001 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ALATHUR - 678 541 4. MANAGER SEETHARAM UP SCHOOL, KUNISSERI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 681 5. HEADMASTER SEETHARAM UP SCHOOL, KUNISSERI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 681 R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T. RAMAPRASAD UNNI R4 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON 10.06.2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## WP(C).No. 18842 of 2016 (E) ## --------------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD.6.5.2016. - P2 COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONERS DAUGHTER, ANUSREE. - P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HEADMASTER. - P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD.13.5.2016. ## RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE “C.R.” V.CHITAMBARESH, J. --------------------W.P (C) No.18842 of 2016 --------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of June, 2016 ## J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for admission of her daughter - Anusree - aged 5 years to Standard-I of Seetharam Upper Primary School ['the School' for short] situated in Palakkad District. The petitioner preferred the School for admission of her daughter as her elder son - Arun - is already a student of Standard-I of the same School. But Ext.P3 application has been rejected by Ext.P4 order of the fifth respondent Headmaster on the ground that permission of the Education Department is needed. Ext.P4 order further reflects that girl students are not normally admitted to the lower primary section even though the School is a mixed one. Ext.P4 order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is violative of Rule 12 of Chapter VI of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 ['the Rules' for short]. 2. The fourth respondent Manager and the fifth respondent Headmaster of the School do not WP(C) No.18842/2016 2 dispute the fact that the School is a mixed one as per the list of Schools maintained. But respondents 4 and 5 contend that no girl student has been admitted to the lower primary section of the school for years and that the same is confined to boy students. The availability of other schools in the neighbourhood are also pointed out by respondents 4 and 5 to contend that there is no necessity to give admission to the applicant. 3. I have heard Mr.George Abraham, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.T.Ramaprasad Unni, Senior Government Pleader as well as Mr.K.Mohana Kannan, Advocate on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. 4. The relevant provision is Rule 12 of Chapter VI KER which is extracted hereunder:- 12. Admission of Boys into Girls' Schools:(i) All Primary Schools (Lower and Upper) shall be deemed to be mixed schools and admission thereto shall be open to boys and girls alike. But under Special circumstances the Director may exempt particular institutions from this rule so that admission there to might be restricted to boys or girls and in the absence of WP(C) No.18842/2016 3 such special circumstances the Director may withdraw such exemption. (ii) Admission to Secondary Schools which are specifically recognised as Girls Schools shall be restricted to girls only; but the Director may issue a general permission to boys below the age of twelve to be admitted to classes not higher than standard VII in particular Girls Schools Provided there are no Boys schools in the locality. But such boys on completing the age of twelve shall not be allowed to continue in such schools beyond the school year in which they complete the age of twelve. (iii) Girls may be admitted into Secondary Schools for boys in areas and in towns where there are no Girls'Schools and in such cases adequate arrangements should be made for the necessary convenience. The admission will be subject to general permission of the Director in particular Boys' Schools which will be specified by him.” 5. The Supreme Court has interpreted the above statutory provisions in Rt. Rev. Mark Netto v. Government of Kerala [1978 KLT 798] and the relevant WP(C) No.18842/2016 4 ## part is extracted hereunder:- “The language of clause (i) indicates that in all Primary Schools admission shall be open to boys and girls alike and such Schools shall be deemed to be mixed Schools. But it is open to the Director to exempt a particular institution from this Rule meaning thereby that if the School authorities so want, they may run the School for the admission of the boys or the girls only. Similarly clause (ii) of Rule 12 suggests that admission to Secondary Schools which are specifically recognised as Girls Schools shall be restricted to girls only, but with the permission of the Director boys below the age of twelve may be admitted. The purport of impugned clause (iii), however, is to enable the Director to permit the admission of girls into Secondary Schools for boys in areas and towns where there are no girls schools. In other words if there are other girls Schools permission may be refused for admission of the girls in a School which has been run for imparting education to boys only.” 6. It is abundantly clear therefore that all WP(C) No.18842/2016 5 primary schools whether it be lower or upper shall be deemed to be mixed schools and admission thereto shall be open to boys and girls alike. No differentiation can be made between a boy and a girl as regards admission to the lower primary or the upper primary school since it is deemed to be a mixed school. A departure from this course is possible only if the Director of Public Instructions grants exemption in view of certain special circumstances. The Director of Public Instructions is even empowered to withdraw the exemption in the absence of special circumstances as per the express language of the provision. Special circumstances depend on ground realities and only in an extra ordinary situation can such an exemption be granted by the Director of Public Instructions. 7. On the other hand there is no necessity for either the Director of Public Instructions or any Educational officer to give permission to grant admission to a girl student in a primary school. The lower primary schools have standards I to IV and the upper primary schools have standards V to VII as per WP(C) No.18842/2016 6 Rule 2 of Chapter II KER. Normally children upto the age of 12 years study in the upper primary section of the School who treat their classmates - girl or boy - alike without any oblique thoughts. A brotherly or a sisterly affection pervades amongst them and a mixed school atleast upto the upper primary section as permitted in KER should be encouraged. A mixed school with a co-education helps the children to have healthy trends and isolation of them at this young age would only prove to be detrimental to their growth. It helps the children grow with better discipline and morality and the permission accorded in Rule 12(i) of Chapter VI KER is with a definite purpose as above. 8. Ext.P4 order refusing admission for the daughter of the petitioner in the lower primary section of the school in the absence of a permission from the Educational authorities is obnoxious. The same is wholly arbitrary and stems from a misreading of Rule 12 (i) of Chapter VI KER which governs the admission of boys and girls alike to all primary schools. Ext.P4 order is quashed and respondents 4 and 5 are directed WP(C) No.18842/2016 7 to grant admission to the daughter of the petitioner in the school if she is otherwise qualified. Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 also lend support to this conclusion. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.