High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-07-17Writ Appeals dismissed

WA Nos. 1230 of 2019 and 106 of 2019, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:WA Nos.1230/2019; WA No.106/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
V. G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2019-07-17
Court Decision / Holding: Writ Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Writ Appeals dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, General Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram; Director of Public Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram; Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam; District Education Officer, Muvattupuzha; Assistant Educational Officer, Piravom

Respondents

M.U. Poulose Mariyil House, Karror, Pazhoor P.O., Piravom, Ernakulam District-686664

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.A.J.Varghese, Special Government Pleader (for WA 1230)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.K.Balachandran (Mangalath); Sri.Rajesh Nair; Sri.V.Ajith Narayanan; Sr. GP Sri.A.J.Varghese

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a consolidated writ appeal before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, challenging orders preventing the closure of St. George Gregorios (typo in document: St. Georgorios) U.P. School, Piravom. The school, established in 1982, faced sharp enrollment decline, with merely 11 students in 2017-18, making continuation uneconomical. The manager announced closure with effect from 1 June 2018 and informed the Director of Public Instructions. Deputy Director of Education directed that closure not be permitted (Ext P9), and the Government’s Ext P16 refused permission to close, directing ongoing operation with PTA and local authorities. The Manager approached the High Court contending that Kerala Education Act Section 7(6) imposes only a 1-year notice to the government before closure, and once complied there is no bar to closure; reliance was also placed on Rule 24(2) KER and Rule 6(10) RTE Rules, which the petitioners claim were set aside by earlier decisions (Krishnakumar v State of Kerala and State of Kerala v Manager, Aided Upper Primary School, Kozhikode). The Single Judge agreed that Section 7(6) gives virtually absolute power to close, and the matter was resolved in the government’s favour. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the writ appeals, noting that accommodation for students would be sought in nearby schools and the lone teacher would receive statutory protection. The court emphasised that closure, in light of grave enrollment decline, aligns with statutory framework and public interest, and rejected the petitioners’ challenge. The appeals were dismissed with no costs and directions were issued to place affected students in alternatives.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education ActRule 24(2), Chapter V, Kerala Education Rules (KER)Rule 6(10), Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (RTE Rules, 2011)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act imposes a one-year notice to the Government and, once complied, the Manager has the exclusive power to close the school. They argue that reliance on Rule 24(2) KER and Rule 6(10) RTE Rules is misplaced, these provisions having been set aside by earlier judgments (Krishnakumar v State of Kerala and State of Kerala v Manager, Aided Upper Primary School, Kozhikode). They urge that institutional closure is permissible in the face of dwindling enrollment and economic non-viability, and that the government’s interference contradicts the statutory framework and would undermine administrative efficiency and the educational interests of the community.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that closure in the public interest, education policy, and the needs of SC/ST student groups require continued operation; Ext P9 and Ext P16 reflect a due consideration of educational need and public interest. They submit that the Court must evaluate the case in light of Kerala Education Act and RTE Rules, and that the government cannot be compelled to permit closure if it would adversely affect public education and student welfare.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Krishnakumar v State of Kerala	(1972) KLT 496	Positive	Cited as authority that Rule 24(2) of Chapter V KER cannot override the statutory provision and has been set aside in Krishnakumar, which supports the current position that such rule cannot bar closure.
State of Kerala and others v Manager, Aided Upper Primary School, Kozhikode	(2016) 2 KHC 629	Positive	Cited to show that Rule 6(10) of the RTE Rules has been treated as inapplicable in similar contexts, aligning with the court’s approach that such rules cannot impede closure where justified by enrollment and economic factors.

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 WA Nos. 1230 of 2019 and 106 of 2019, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 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** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.1230 of 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19349/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24.9.2018** ## **APPELLANTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695001** **2 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ERNAKULAM-682030** **4 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686661.** **5 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686664.** **BY SR.GP SRI.A.J.VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENT:** **M.U.POULOSE MARIYIL HOUSE, KAROOR, PAZHOOR.P.O., PIRAVAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686664.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (MANGALATH) SRI.RAJESH NAIR SRI.V.AJITH NARAYANAN** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.07.2019, ALONG WITH WA.106/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.Nos.1230 & 106 of 2019 2 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1941** **WA.No.106 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19349/2018 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS:** - **1 PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (PTA) ST.GEORGORIOS U.P SCHOOL, KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT** - **2 ANANDHU SAJAN (MINOR)** **STUDENT, STANDARD VI, ST.GEORGORIOS U.P SCHOOL, KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND FATHER M.K.SAJAN** - **3 YADHU KRISHNAN V.A. (MINOR)** - **STUDENT, STANDARD VII, ST.GEORGORIOS U.P SCHOOL, KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND FATHER AYYAPANKUTTY V.T.** - **4 AKSHAY SAJU (MINOR) STUDENT, STANDARD V, ST.GEORGORIOS U.P SCHOOL, KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664,REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND FATHER SAJU A.V.** - **5 AKASH K.R. (MINOR) STUDENT, STANDARD VII, ST.GEORGORIOS U.P SCHOOL, KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664,REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND FATHER MAYA RATHEESH** - **6 AJAY B. (MINOR) STUDENT, STANDARD V, ST.GEORGORIOS U.P SCHOOL,** W.A.Nos.1230 & 106 of 2019 3 **KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664,REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER NISHA CHANDRAN** **7 ABHISHEK RATHEESHKUMAR (MINOR) STUDENT, STANDARD VI, ST.GEORGORIOS U.P SCHOOL, KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664,REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND FATHER RATHEESHKUMAR M.T.** - **8 SREEHARI BABU (MINOR) STUDENT, STANDARD VI, ST.GEORGORIOS U.P SCHOOL, KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664,REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND FATHER P.K.BABU** - **9 RITHUNANDA T.N. (MINOR) STUDENT, STANDARD VI, ST.GEORGORIOS U.P SCHOOL, KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664,REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND FATHER NANDAKUMAR T.N.** - **10 VISWAJITH N.J., (MINOR) STUDENT, STANDARD VI, ST.GEORGORIOS U.P SCHOOL, KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664,REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER RAKESWARI JAMUNAKUMAR** - **11 ARUNIMA N.J.(MINOR) STUDENT, STANDARD VI, ST.GEORGORIOS U.P SCHOOL, KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664,REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SUMA SHANMUGHAN** - **12 DURGA SREEKANDH (MINOR)** **STUDENT, STANDARD V, ST.GEORGORIOS U.P SCHOOL, KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664,REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER REMYA SREEKANDH** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **M.U. POULOSE MARIYIL HOUSE, KARROR, PAZHOOR P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664** **1** W.A.Nos.1230 & 106 of 2019 4 - **2 STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **3 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION ERNAKULAM-682 030** - **5 THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686 661** - **6 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 664** - **7 CHRISTURAJA PRAYER CENTRE CHARITABLE SOCIETY (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (MANGALATH)** **SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM SRI.RAJESH NAIR SRI.V.AJITH NARAYANAN SR.GP SRI.A.J.VARGHESE** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.07.2019, ALONG WITH WA.1230/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.Nos.1230 & 106 of 2019 5 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Arun, J** W.A.No.1230 of 2019 is filed by the State and W.A.No.106 of 2019 is filed by 3[rd] parties, namely, the Parent Teacher Association, St.Gregorious U.P School, Piravom. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Manager of the St.Gregorious U.P School, (‘the School’ for short) Piravom, setting aside Exts P9 and P16 orders, by which the Deputy Director of Education and the Government had rejected the request made by the Manager to permit him to close down his school. 2. The School started functioning in the year 1982 and due to various reasons the strength of the students in the school depleted gradually and by the year 2017-2018 there were only 11 students in the school. 4 among the 11 students were in Standard VII and hence left the school on completion of their studies, leaving only 7 more students in the school. The School W.A.Nos.1230 & 106 of 2019 6 having become uneconomic and the Manager having found it impossible to continue with the school due to personal reasons, decided to close down the school and intimated his decision to close down the school w.e.f 1.6.2018, to the Director of Public Instructions. By Ext P9 letter dated 10.4.2018 the Deputy Director of Education directed the Assistant Educational Officer concerned to ensure that the petitioner does not close down the School. By Ext P16, the Government also refused to grant permission for closing down the School and directed that steps should be taken to continue the School with the help of the Parent Teacher Association and the Local Self Government Institution. 3. Aggrieved by Exts P9 and P16, the Manager filed the writ petition contending that the only provision under the Kerala Education Act dealing with closure of schools is Section 7 (6) and the only requirement under Section 7(6) was that the Manager shall not close down the School, unless one year's notice, expiring with 31[st] May of any year, of his intention to close down the school, has been given to W.A.Nos.1230 & 106 of 2019 7 the officer authorised by the Government in this behalf. This requirement having been complied with, the learned Single Judge held that the objection of the Educational Authorities and the Government based on educational need, public interest and on the ground that the students belong to SC/ST category was of no avail. It was held that Section 7(6) gives absolute power to the Manager to close down the school. Two of the provisions relied on by the appellants, _Viz;_ Rule 24 (2) of Chapter V of KER and Rule 6 (10) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 were found to have been set at naught by this Court in **Krishnakumar v State of Kerala (1972 KLT 496)** and **State of Kerala and others v Manager, Aided Upper Primary School, Kozhikode (2016(2) KHC 629)** , respectively. 4. When the appeals were taken up for for final hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the Manager informed that the school had already been closed down pursuant to the impugned judgment. The finding in the impugned judgment being in accordance W.A.Nos.1230 & 106 of 2019 8 with the statutory provision, the judgment do not warrant interference. Hence, the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the fact that the students, even though very few, are left high and dry on closure of the school, we directed the learned Senior Government Pleader to find out the possibility of accommodating the students in a nearby school. The Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that action has already been taken to get the students of the school admitted in the nearest aided or Government school. As far as the solitary teacher working in the school is concerned, it is assured that the teacher would be entitled for statutory protection. In the result, the Writ Appeals are dismissed recording the submission that the students who were continuing in the school will be accommodated in a nearby aided or Government school and the teacher who was working in the school, as on 31.5.2019, the date of closure of the school, will be entitled for statutory protection. There is an impleading petition W.A.Nos.1230 & 106 of 2019 9 filed expressing interest to purchase the school. The writ petitioner outright declines the offer and we do not see any reason to broker a negotiation; which is not our task and the petition stands rejected. Writ Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** **V.G.ARUN, JUDGE** cms xxx