High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-06-21Writ petition allowed; Ext.P8 quashed; Governme...

Kumari P. Mini v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:OP.No.13346 of 2000 (L)

Neutral Citation:null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Judgment Date: 2007-06-21
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed; Ext.P8 is quashed; The Government shall conduct a hearing with notice to the institution, the petitioner, and the 7th respondent, and decide finally on the minority status of the school in accordance with Article 30 of the Constitution, considering the Apex Court’s and this Court’s decisions. The matter is to be decided within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P8 quashed; Government to decide minority status after hearing within four months

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kumari P. Mini

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram
Deputy Director of Education, Trivandrum, Killipalam, Thiruvananthapuram District
District Educational Officer, Neyyattinkara
Assistant Educational Officer, Balaramapuram, Trivandrum District
The Manager, St. Joseph's L.P.School, Chowara, Thiruvananthapuram District
P.M. Rosamma, L.P.S.A., St. Joseph's L.P.School, Chowara

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Dr. K.P. Kylasanath Pillay
• Sri B. Prabath Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri N. Manojkumar (Government Pleader)
• Adv. K.P. Dandapani

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Kumari P. Mini, a teacher-in-charge at St. Joseph's Lower Primary School, Chowara, was overlooked when the 6th respondent appointed the 7th respondent as Headmistress of the same school. The core dispute was whether the petitioner, a senior teacher, should be appointed to the post in preference to the 7th respondent, and whether the institution enjoys minority status protected under Article 30 of the Constitution. Although Ext.P7 (order dated 12.04.2000 by the Addl. Director of Public Instruction) concluded that the petitioner was eligible for the Headmistress post, the Government issued Ext.P8 (29.04.2000) approving the 7th respondent's appointment and directing the District Educational Officer to decide the minority status issue later. The petitioner challenged Ext.P8, arguing it was impermissible: it relied on a petition filed prior to Ext.P7, and no hearing or notice had been given. The court quashed Ext.P8, emphasizing that the minority status issue could not be decided without proper hearing and notification. It remitted the matter to be decided by the Government after hearing on whether the school is a minority institution under Article 30. The judgment directs a hearing with notice to the institution, the petitioner, and the 7th respondent, and provides that the Government should decide the minority issue in due course, within four months from receipt of the judgment. The writ petition is thus allowed to the extent stated.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 30, Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Minority rights under Article 30 of the Constitution of India
Evan's U.P. School v. State of Kerala (2002) 1 KLT 849 (cited/applied)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that having regard to her seniority, she should be appointed as Headmistress of St. Joseph's L.P.S., Chowara, and that Ext.P7 indicated her eligibility, while Ext.P8 issued by the Government appointing the 7th respondent was impermissible since it relied on an earlier petition and was issued without notice or hearing. The petitioner also challenges the subsequent deferment of the minority-status decision to the District Educational Officer. The court is urged to quash Ext.P8 and to ensure that the Government determines minority status in accordance with law after due hearing, so that the petitioner’s seniority can be given effect to under the applicable rules.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the minority status of the school is a decisive factor and contend that the Government, after considering materials and earlier orders (DOE in 2001; DPI in 2001; Government in 2001), may determine minority status. They submit that Ext.P8 was a reasoned order considering minority claim, and that hearing and notice should be provided in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements. They emphasize that the Government is the competent authority to decide minority status and that any challenge to Ext.P8 must await that decision, following established precedents.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Evan's U.P. School v. State of Kerala	2002 (1) KLT 849	Positive	The Court cites and follows this decision to hold that disputes regarding minority status must be decided by the Government, and directs hearing and final determination by governmental authorities.

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 Kumari P. Mini v. State of Kerala and Others 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 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2007 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1929 OP.No. 13346 of 2000(L) ----------------------- PETITIONER: - ------------ KUMARI P.MINI, TEACHER-IN-CHARGE, ST.JOSEPH'S L.P.S. CHOWARA, CHOWARA P.O., (VIA) BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY ## SRI.B.PRABATH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM, KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL LOFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA. 5. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, BALARAMAPURAM, TRIVANDRUMDISTRICT. 6. THE MANGER, ST.JOSEPH'S L.P.SCHOOL, CHOWARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. P.M.ROSAMMA, L.P.S.A., ST.JOSEPH'S L.P.SCHOOL, CHOWARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTIRCT. - R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.N.MANOJKUMAR R6, R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NOS.21765 & 25271 OF 2000 & 53740 OF 2002 IN OP NO.13346 OF 2000 L //DISMISSED// 21.06.2007. SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETIITONER'S EXHIBITS** : - EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 1.6.1999 ISSUED BY MANAGER ST.JOSEPH'S SCHOOL L.P.S. CHOWARA. - EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 19.7.1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. - EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 21.7.1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. - EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REJECTING THE APPOINTMENT VIDE NO.F/2185/99 DATED 5.8.1999 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. - EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 20.8.1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTICE DATED 7.10.1999 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.F1-67470/99/DPI/K.DIS. DT.12.4.2000 OF THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TVM. - EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O.RT NO.1564/2000/G.EDN. DT.19.4.2000 OF THE GOVERNMENT. ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** : - EXT.R7(a): TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL CERTIFICATE AND TEACHERS TRAINING COURSE CERTIFICATE. - EXT.R7(b): DATED 14.7.98 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR HAVING PASSED THE DEPARTMENTAL TEST (ACCOUNT TEST LOWER) - EXT.R7(c): TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAW RELATING TO THE MANAGEMENT OF ST.JOSEPH'S L.P.S., CHOWARA. - EXT.R7(d): TRUE COPY OF THE HANDING OVER OF CHARGE TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. op.13346/00 - EXT.R7(e): DATED 21.7.1999 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. - EXT.R7(f): DATED 21.7.1999 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER APPOINTING THE 7TH RESPONDENT AS THE HEADMISTRESS OF THE SCHOOL. - EXT.R7(g): DATED 21.7.1999 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R7(h): TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION GIVEN BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R7(i): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF CHANGE OF STAFF. - EXT.R7(j): DATED 21.7.1999 TRUE COPY OF the DECLARATION BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. - EXT.R7(k): DATED 21.7.1999 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.** ------------------------------------------- ## O.P.No.13346 OF 2000 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of June, 2007 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, an admitted senior of the 7[th] respondent, was overlooked by the 6[th] respondent who chose to appoint the 7[th] respondent as the Headmistress of a Lower Primary School. The question of approval of such appointment of the 7[th] respondent was considered by the statutory authorities resulting in Exts.P4 and P7, whereby, the Assistant Educational Officer and the Director of Public Instructions held that it is the petitioner who is eligible to be appointed as the Headmistress in preference to the 7[th] respondent. In doing so, the DPI considered the contentions of the management and the rival teachers on the question whether the institution is a minority institution. He concluded that it is not. 2. Though that order (Ext.P7) is dated 12.4.2000, the petitioner faced an order dated 19.4.2000 (Ext.P8), whereby, the Government approved the appointment of the 7[th] respondent as ## OP.13346/00 ## Page numbers the Headmistress and directed the DEO to take a decision separately on the question of the minority right, as claimed by the institution. Firstly, this was plainly impermissible because if the minority status of the school is not conceded, the 7[th] respondent cannot be appointed as the Headmistress in preference to the petitioner. Secondly, without deciding that issue, it was inappropriate for the Government to have relegated such issue for consideration of the DEO, when it was the Government which were duty bound to decide any dispute as to minority status. (See the decision reported in **Evan's U.P.School** v. **State of Kerala** [2002 (1) KLT 849]). That apart, a perusal of Ext.P8 will show that it was issued on the basis of a petition dated 25.9.1999 filed by the Manager, long before Ext.P7 proceedings, but immediately after Ext.P4 decision by the AEO. It is also ex facie Ext.P8 that neither the petitioner nor any other person entitled to be heard was notified of such proceedings and heard in relation to that. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P8 cannot stand. The same is accordingly quashed. OP.13346/00 ## Page numbers 4. Following the above, what remains is the requirement to consider the question whether the education institution represented by the 6[th] respondent is a minority institution entitled to protection of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. In view of the ratio of the decision of this Court in **Evan's U.P.School** (supra), it is for the Government to decide such issue. On such a decision being rendered, the dispute on the rival claims between the petitioner and the 6[th] respondent could also be finally settled by the Government. For such purpose, the Government shall, following this judgment, conduct a hearing with notice to the institution, the petitioner and the 7[th] respondent and decide finally on the aforesaid issues. Let that be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge** kkb. OP.13346/00 Page numbers ======================= THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J O.P.NO.13346 OF 2000 JUDGMENT 21[st] JUNE, 2007. ======================= OP.13346/00 Page numbers ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.** ------------------------------------------- O.P.No.13346 OF 2000 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of June, 2007 ## **O R D E R** Listed to be spoken to at the request of the counsel for the 6[th] respondent. 2. Spoke. 3. Learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent submits that on 20.1.2001, the District Educational Officer found that the school is a minority institution; on 26.6.2001, the Director of Public Instructions granted minority status to the school and on 13.10.2001, the Government found that the school is a minority institution. This statement is recorded, however, noticing that no materials are placed on record as of now. Therefore, if materials are placed regarding the above, the same shall also be taken into consideration, as also the binding decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, while the matter is OP.13346/00 Page numbers considered by the Government following the directions contained in the judgment dated 21.6.2007. This order shall be appended to the judgment dated 21.6.2007. Sd/- **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge** kkb.