St. Mary's Mahila Mandiram Girls Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala and Director of Higher Secondary Education

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/27TH PHALGUNA, 1937 WP(C).No. 9149 of 2016 (P) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- ## 1. ST.MARY'S MAHILA MANDIRAM GIRLS HIGHER - SECONDARY SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ADOOR 691523 ## 2. DR. ZACHARIAS MAR APREM - MANAGER ST. MARY'S MAHILA MANDIRAM GIRS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL ADOOR 691523 BY ADVS.SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SRI.K.SATHIYANANDAN PILLAY SRI.SHAKTHI PRAKASH SRI.PRATHEEK VISWANATHAN SRI.K.DHRUV KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 2. THE DIRCTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI M A FAYAZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9149 of 2016 (P) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2014 P2:A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.05.2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.25431/2014 P3:A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2015 IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1303/2015 ETC. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE jma ## K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 9149 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17[th] day of March, 2016 ## J U D G M E N T The petitioner in the above writ petition seeks a direction to the respondent to take steps to ascertain the educational need of the area in which the petitioners school is situated, so as to facilitate the starting of an additional Plus II course in Commerce in the petitioners school for the academic year 2016-17. 2. 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. 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 WPC.No.9149/2016 : 2 : 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 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 course could make such an Secondary 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 WPC.No.9149/2016 : 3 : 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 Pre-degree 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. WPC.No.9149/2016 : 4 : The Court emphasised the need for the 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 WPC.No.9149/2016 : 5 : 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 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 WPC.No.9149/2016 : 6 : 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.” 3. The said observation would squarely apply in the case of the petitioner also. Though the petitioner was granted an additional batch, since it was not one sanctioned by the six member committee, the same stood cancelled. The said decision of the Government to cancel the grant of additional batches to the schools, which were not recommended by the six member committee, was upheld by a Division Bench by judgment dated 21.08.2015 W.A. No. 1280/2015 and connected cases. The said decision produced at Ext.P3 specifically noticed the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which was relied on to dismiss the writ appeals. The petitioner, as was noticed, seeks for a declaration that WPC.No.9149/2016 : 7 : the petitioner is entitled to an additional batch. By Manager, St. Sebastian's High School (supra), this Court had specifically directed the Government to consider the educational need and it is not for this Court to interfere with such directions. The Division Bench too had taken note of the said decision. 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 a squarely applicable here, wherein also the petitioner seeks preemptive consideration of the educational need. The writ petition would stand dismissed in limine. Sd/- - (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge