High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-04-08Writ petition dismissed in limine

P. Subhash Chandran v. State of Kerala and Director of Higher Secondary Education

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.14813 of 2016 (B)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-04-08
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition would stand dismissed in limine.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed in limine

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. Subhash Chandran, Manager, Sree Chithira Vilasom Boys High School, Chirayinke ezhu, Thiruvananthapuram District

Respondents

State of Kerala
Director of Higher Secondary Education

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad (Sr.)
• Sri.S.Ramesh
• Sri.Naveen.T
• Smt.Pooja Surendran

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.M.A.Fayaz

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, P. Subhash Chandran, Manager of Sree Chithira Vilasom Boys High School, seeks sanction to start a Higher Secondary section in the aided Boys High School at Chirayinke ezhu, Thiruvananthapuram. He relies on government orders and communications (Exs. P4-P5) and on a chain of correspondence through the DEO and Regional Deputy Director (Exs. P6-P9) to urge that the school be considered for a Higher Secondary batch. The petitioner had previously challenged the matter in a writ petition and points to Exhibit P4 to show governmental recommendation, while Exhibit P12 indicates the school should be granted the Higher Secondary section for the coming academic year. However, the respondent State disputes this, invoking a policy-based framework established by this Court in prior decisions, including a judgment in Manager, St. Sebastian’s High School v. State of Kerala (2015) and the later 2016 decision in W.P.(C) No.8109/2016, which mandated a transparent process for assessing educational need in each district and calling for applications only after such need is determined. The Government formed a Six Member Committee (Ex. P10) and, despite recommendations, there were cancellations (Ex. P12) upheld by a Division Bench (W.A.No.1280/2015). The Court concludes that policy and procedural requirements must be exhausted before granting relief and dismisses the petition in limine.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Writs are not to be issued for the asking and repeatedly on the same subject matter.
Judicial policy adherence: Government must establish a transparent mechanism to determine educational need and invite applications accordingly.
Prima facie; emphasis on assessing need before relief; reliance on established policy directives rather than ad hoc requests.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that there is evident educational need to establish a Higher Secondary section in the petitioner's boys' school and that this need is supported by the Government's order and by the procedural history including Exhibits P4–P9. He asserts that the Commission’s and Government’s decisions should be read in light of the directions from earlier cases that the Government must assess educational needs district-wise and invite applications thereafter. He contends that Exhibit P4 does not negate the need and that the final directive in Exhibit P12, coupled with prior favorable recommendations, warrants sanction for the next academic year. The petitioner relies on the policy-oriented judgments directing a transparent mechanism and emphasizes that delay or policy drift should not defeat the educational rights of students and institutions supporting the expansion of higher secondary education.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the State has adopted a policy framework, requiring a transparent mechanism to determine actual educational need before sanctioning new higher secondary batches. The Government formed a Six Member Committee (Ex. P10) and issued orders (Exs. P11, P12) after evaluating recommendations. They argue that Ext. P17 and precedents require determining genuine need in each district and inviting applications, rather than granting relief to a single school without a properly established need. They emphasize the need for adherence to policy and caution against judicial directions in policy decisions, noting past cancellations (upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1280/2015). In short, relief cannot be granted in the absence of a complete, transparent assessment of educational need and compliant procedural steps.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Manager, St. Sebastian's High School v. State of Kerala	2015 (4) KLT 65	Positive	Cited to reflect the court’s duty to evaluate educational need through a structured and policy-driven process before granting sanction for higher secondary courses.
W.A. No. 1280/2015 and connected cases	W.A.No.1280/2015	Positive	Used to illustrate that approvals can be canceled and that past approvals are not entitlements; supports the need for a fresh, merit-based assessment.
WP(C) No.24143 of 2010 and connected cases	W.P.(C) No.24143 of 2010	Positive	Underlines the policy direction to develop machinery for determining educational need and inviting applications; forms the basis for the current procedural stance.
WP(C) No.8109/2016	W.P.(C) No.8109/2016	Mentioned Only	Referenced as part of the broader policy framework; not directly relied upon to grant relief in this petition.
WP(C).No.34129 of 2014	W.P.(C).No.34129 of 2014	Mentioned Only	Interim order background; cited to illustrate prior proceedings and the division of cases in the policy context.
WP(C) No.13261/2012	W.P.(C) No.13261/2012	Mentioned Only	True copy of a judgment cited in Exhibit P3; used as background rather than as a direct binding authority.

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 P. Subhash Chandran v. State of Kerala and Director of Higher Secondary Education 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/19TH CHAITHRA, 1938 ## W.P.(C).No.14813 of 2016 (B) --------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):- ------------------------ P. SUBHASH CHANDRAN, MANAGER, SREE CHITHIRA VILASOM BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.) SRI.S.RAMESH SRI.NAVEEN.T SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN. RESPONDENT(S):- --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- W.P.(C) NO.14813 OF 2016-B ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- ------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.25.3.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTG.22.5.2012 OF THE DIRECTOR SENT TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.8.6.2012 IN W.P.(C) NO.13261/2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O. DATED 10.9.2012 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O. DT.11.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.21.6.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FORT SANCTIONING HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.22.6.2013 OF THE D.E.O., ATTINGAL TO THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.6.4.2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.34129 OF 2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.24.06.2013. - EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O. DT.24.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT ALONG WITH THE LIST OF SCHOOLS. - EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O. DT.23.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. - EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.20TH AUGST, 2015 IN W.P.(C).NO.34129/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.3.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O. DT.5.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- ---------------------------------------NIL. Vku/[ true copy ] ## K. Vinod Chandran, J --------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.14813 of 2016-B ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 08[th] day of April, 2016. ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, the Manager of an aided Boys High School, seeks for grant of Higher Secondary section. The petitioner is also stated to be the Manager of a Girls school, in which there is a Higher Secondary section. The petitioner contends that the educational need for starting a Higher Secondary batch in the Boys High School and the availability of necessary infrastructural facilities is evident from Exhibit P4 order. The petitioner had also made an application pursuant to the notification issued by the Government, produced at Exhibit P5. The application, seen at Exhibit P6, was forwarded by the District Educational Officer to the Regional Deputy Director as per Exhibit P7. The petitioner had also approached this Court with a writ petition, in which a direction was issued to consider the application in the light of Exhibit P4 . The Regional Deputy Director had also recommended the case of the petitioner by Exhibit P9, which, however, was declined by the Government by Exhibit P11. WP(C) No.14813 of 2016 - 2 - 2. The Government had appointed a Six Member Committee with the Director of Higher Secondary Education as the Chairman, who had recommended certain schools as per Exhibit P10. The petitioner contends that the petitioner's school ought to have been considered on the basis of Exhibit P4. In any event, now, as per Exhibit P12, the petitioner's school has to be granted a Higher Secondary section for the coming academic year. 3. No such reliefs can be granted in view of the judgment of this Court reported in **Manager, St. Sebastian's High School v. State of Kerala - 2015 (4) KLT 65** [Exhibit P12]. This Court had specifically considered the entire issue, when another school had sought for consideration of a representation filed for sanction of additional batches by judgment dated 09.03.2016 in W.P.(C) No.8109/2016. Paragraphs 2 to 7 are extracted hereunder: - “2. This Court while disposing of WP(C) No.24143 of 2010 and connected cases (Ext.P17) with respect to consideration of additional Higher Secondary courses in the aided Schools, directed that the Government shall evolve and put in place a suitable machinery to determine the educational need in each District in the field of Higher Secondary Education. The manner in which such machinery has to be put in place how - 3 - WP(C) No.14813 of 2016 it has to be worked out, was also specified. It was also directed that, after such educational need is determined for particular areas, application shall be called for from Educational agencies and in that event, any aided School desirous of getting a Higher Secondary course could make such an application. The State Government was also directed to complete such exercise by 31.03.2016. 3. The prayer in the above writ petition is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P18 application of the petitioner, having regard to the Educational need and backwardness of the area and grant sanction to the petitioner's School to start a Higher Secondary course by upgrading the petitioner's existing aided School as directed in Ext.P17 judgment. This Court is of the opinion that it may not be proper for this Court to issue directions after directions on the same subject matter. Writs are not to be issued for the asking and repeatedly on the same subject matter; which would only undermine the authority of this Court. 4. In Ext.P17, another learned Single judge had noticed the various litigations before this Court with respect to grant of higher secondary courses, pursuant to de-linking of Predegree from colleges. The policy framed by the Government and the modifications made thereat, as also the various orders passed by this Court was noticed. The learned Single judge, despairingly noticed the spate of litigation, before this Court, every time a policy decision is taken by the Government. The Court emphasised the need for the - 4 - WP(C) No.14813 of 2016 Government to bring in a machinery by which the educational need of areas within the State could be assessed periodically and applications invited for grant of new courses or for additional batches. 5. The Court, reluctantly, quite understanding the powers under Art:226, but feeling the need to curb the repeated resort to this Court on a policy decision being made; made pertinent observations as to how a transparent procedure could be evolved by which the essential inputs to assess the educational need of a particular area could be determined. The Court also directed that the State Government shall endeavour to complete the exercise by 31.03.2016 and then continue the procedure in every succeeding year. The time prescribed in Ext.P17 is also not over. 6. The petitioner's apprehension is that the lethargy of the Government would lead to the petitioner being not sanctioned the Higher Secondary course even in this year. However, that cannot lead to picking and choosing one of the aided Schools only for the reason that they have approached this Court and direct a lone consideration when elaborate procedure has been laid down by this Court itself in Ext.P17. The time granted also having not elapsed, on an assessment of the total circumstances this Court is not inclined to grant any direction as sought for in the writ petition. 7. It is also to be observed that in paragraph (vi)of the operative portion in Ext.P17, the learned Single Judge has - 5 - WP(C) No.14813 of 2016 specifically declared that the mere fact that any Educational agency had preferred any application in the past or that any such application was earlier rejected shall be of no relevance in a consideration by the State Government of the merit of the fresh application made as called for by the Government. This also indicates that the Educational agency would be entitled to make such an application only after first determining the Educational need of the area and only when the Government calls for such applications. The perceived educational need as projected by the educational agency, in self interest, is not at all relevant for consideration.” 4. The said observation would squarely apply in the case of the petitioner also. _Prima facie_ , from a reading of Ext.P4 it cannot be said that the Government had recommended the sanction of Higher Secondary course to the petitioner's school. Further even with respect to the schools in which the Six Member Committee had sanctioned additional batches, the same stood cancelled. The cancellation so made was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 21.08.2015 W.A.No.1280/2015 and connected cases. The Division Bench had also affirmed the directions in Exhibit P12 judgment. - 6 - WP(C) No.14813 of 2016 5. Herein it is to be noticed that the interim order at Exhibit P8 was issued in W.P.(C) No.34129 of 2014, which stood disposed of by the common judgment in a batch of writ petitions, evidenced by Exhibit P12. By the aforesaid judgment in **Manager, St. Sebastian's High School** ( _supra_ ), a learned Single Judge of this Court had specifically directed the Government to consider the educational need and then call for applications. It is not for this Court to interfere with such directions, in another writ petition. It was also specifically directed that the Government would call for applications if educational need is found in any area and only then the educational agency would have a right to make an application. The observations made by this Court in the extracted judgment is squarely applicable here, wherein also the petitioner seeks a pre-emptive consideration of the educational need. The writ petition would stand dismissed _in limine_ . Sd/K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- [ true copy ]