Kerala High Court
Central Board Of Secondary Education ... vs V.M Public School on 5 April, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 233, (2019) 3 KER LT 219
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WA.No. 288 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37781/2018 of HIGHCOURT
APPELLANT/S:
1 CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE),
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHIKSHA KANDRA, 2,
COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREETH VIHAR, DELHI- 110092.
2 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY (AFFILIATION),
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE), SHIKSHA
KENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREETH VIHAR, DELHI-
110092.
BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 V.M PUBLIC SCHOOL,
PERUMATTOM, PUTHUPPADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT- 686673, REP. BY ITS MANAGER,
T.M.JALALUDHEEN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MUSTHAFA (MUTHU),
RESIDING AT THOPPILKUDIYIL HOUSE, PERUMATTOM,
PUTHUPPADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-
686673.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION (N) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA SUB-DISTRICT, (ERNAKULAM DISTRICT),
P.O.MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN- 686661.
W.A No.288/2019&
WP(C) 37781/2018
::2::
5 THE PRINCIPAL,
KTC'S NECT PUBLIC SCHOOL, CHERUVATOOR P.O.,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM- 686691.
BY ADVS.
SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.)
SMT.P.J.RAZIA BEEVI
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI A.J VARGHESE SR GP, SRI P. GOPAL, SRI KURIAN
GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SR (AMICUS CURIAE), SRI V.
RAJASEKHARAN NAIR (ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER), SRI BABU
KARUKAPADATH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2019,
ALONG WITH WP(C).37781/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.A No.288/2019&
WP(C) 37781/2018
::3::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941
WP(C).No. 37781 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
V.M.PUBLIC SCHOOL
PERUMATTOM, PUTHUPPADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 673, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER, T.M. JALALUDHEEN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O
MUSTHAFA(MUTHU), RESIDING AT THOPPILKUDIYIL HOUSE,
PERUMATTOM, PUTHUPPADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 686 673.
BY ADV. SMT.P.J.RAZIA BEEVI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION(CBSE)
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2,
COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110 092.
2 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY (AFFILIATION)
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE),
SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREET VIHAR,
DELHI - 110 092.
3 ADDL.R3. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION (N) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
4 ADDL.R4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
W.A No.288/2019&
WP(C) 37781/2018
::4::
5 ADDL.R5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA SUB-DISTRICT, (ERNAKULAM DISTRICT),
P.O.MUVATTUPUZHA, PINCODE NO.686661. (ADDL.R3 TO R5
ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.11.2018 IN IA
1/2018.)
6 ADDL.R6 THE PRINCIPAL
KTC' S NECT PUBLIC SCHOOL, CHERUVATOOR PO,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691. (ADDL.R6
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30/11/2018 IN
IA.NO.03/2018)
7 ADDL.R7 -IBRAHIM
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. MARAKKAR, VELAKATH HOUSE,
VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, PERUMATTOM. PUTHUPADY P.O,
ERNAKULAM.
8 ADDL.R8- M.H,MOITHEEN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. HAMEED
LABBA,
MUTHUVATTU HOUSE, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE,
PERUMATTOM,
PUTHUPADY P.O, ERNAKULAM.
9 ADDL.R9- MUHAMMED KAREEM,
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. K.E. MUHAMMED,
KARIKKANAKUDIYIL, VELLOORKUNNAM VILALGE,
PERUMATTOM, PUTHUPADY P.O, ERNAKULAM( ADDL.R7 TO R9
ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.3.2019 IN
IA.NO, 3/2019)
10 ADDLR10- SMT.JAYASREE T.K,
KADAKKOTTU HOUSE, ENANALLOOR P.O, KALAMPOOR, PHONE-
9446391742.(ADDL.R10 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 26.03.2019 IN WP(C)).
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)
SRI.NIRMAL S., SC, CBSE
SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2019, ALONG WITH WA.288/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A No.288/2019&
WP(C) 37781/2018
::5::
JUDGMENT
[ WA 288/2019 ,WP(C).37781/2018 ] Vinod Chandran, J.
At stake is the future of 14 students who completed Standard VII and continued Standard IX in an unrecognized, unaffiliated School; the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed on 21.11.2018, seeking a mandamus directing the Central Board of Secondary Education (for brevity "CBSE") to consider provisional affiliation of the petitioner in accordance with Ext.P9 judgment and also in the meanwhile permit the 14 students to continue their studies in Standard IX, in which they were studying in the petitioner-school, by transfer to any nearby affiliated School and allow them to register their names for Standard X during the academic year 2019-20.
2. The writ petition was first amended on 29.11.2018 seeking relief against the State and its Educational Authorities, who were also sought to be impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 5. Obviously, W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::6::
this move was on the realization that the petitioner lacked recognition from the State, which was a compulsory mandate to apply for affiliation with the CBSE. Again, the additional 6th respondent was impleaded by order dated 30.11.2018; who is the Principal of a School affiliated to the CBSE who expressed his willingness to take in the 14 students to Standard IX, subject to approval of the CBSE. The learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 30.11.2018 directing the CBSE to allow registration of the students for the academic year 2019-2020 in Standard X. The CBSE filed Writ Appeal specifically contending that there could be no such admission made in Standard X nor the students transferred to Standard IX of an affiliated School at the fag end of the academic year; pointing out that the same would be against the Affiliation Bye-laws 1998 and 2018 as also the Examination Bye-laws of 1995; both brought out by and applicable to, the CBSE.
3. At the initial stage itself, when the appeal came up for admission before us, we were concerned W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::7::
about the fate of the students who had continued their studies till Standard IX in an unaffiliated, unrecognized School. We appointed an Advocate Commissioner to examine the Admission and Attendance Registers, of the 6th respondent School and to take possession of the same if required, to verify as to from when the 14 students were admitted to that school. Considering the seriousness of the issue and the necessity to bring a quietus before the next academic year commences in June 2019, we directed that the writ petition itself be posted before us; especially after being apprised of the violations as per the Bye-laws. On 08.03.2019 the Registers were produced before us. It was found that the admissions were made and attendance marked from 21.11.2018, but however, specifically based on the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated
30.11.2018. Obviously, no admission could have been made on 21.11.2018, when it is stated to be made on the strength of the interim order of the learned Single Judge, which was passed later, nor was there any direction, in the interim order, to make such an W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::8::
admission. The order dated 30.11.2018 proceeded on the basis that the students were transferred and continued in the 6th respondent, an affiliated school; which is belied by the Registers of that affiliated School.
4. On 08.03.2019, it was also brought to our notice that the CBSE had issued a communication rejecting the application for affiliation which was produced in the writ petition and an amendment was sought, to challenge that particular order also in the writ petition. We allowed the amendment and since the Standing Counsel sought for time to file an affidavit or Counsels statement, in objection, we granted time till 25.03.2019. When the matter came up on 26.03.2019, we were prima facie of the opinion that that there could be no orders passed in the writ petition allowing registration of the students in Standard X of the affiliated school, enabling the students to sit for the Board/School exam conducted by the CBSE at the secondary level. On that day itself three individuals said to be members of the Jama-ath, to which belongs the land leased out for the purpose of establishing the W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::9::
educational institution, sought for impleadment alleging fraud and suppression of material facts by the Trust which had established the School. We impleaded the said persons as additional respondents 7 to 9.
5. Prima facie convinced that it was difficult to permit the students to continue in Standard X, especially going by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2006) 13 SCC 673 (Sunil Oraon Vs. CBSE); we were of the opinion that the parents of the minor students should be heard. We noticed Ext.P17 filed by one of the parents in a representative capacity before the 6th respondent School and impleaded the author as additional 10th respondent in the writ petition. She was issued with notice by Special Messenger. On 28.03.2019 three parents appeared before us, one of whom was the additional 10th respondent and we directed them to engage Counsel. The parents made a request before us to appoint a Counsel for them and hence by order dated 29.03.2019, we appointed Advocate P.Gopal to assist the parents of the minor students and argue on behalf of the additional W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::10::
10th respondent who was impleaded in a representative capacity. One of the parents who appeared before us is the Manager of the petitioner-School and the 10th respondent is a teacher employed in that school. We also sought the assistance of learned Senior Counsel Sri Kurian George Kannanthanam considering the seriousness of the issue and the plight of the innocent minor-students who commenced and continued their schooling in the petitioner-school. The petitioner- school in its writ petition state that it commenced in the year 2009 and obviously these children were continued from then in the unaffiliated, unrecognized school all these years, with the knowledge of their parents who are said to be members of the Jamma-ath and also office bearers of the Trust, except the 10 th respondent who admittedly is a teacher employed there. We have to immediately notice that the CBSE had in its various communications addressed to the petitioner, during the processing of their application for affiliation, repeatedly and invariably cautioned them from commencing the School before obtaining W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::11::
affiliation; which was not heeded to by the petitioner.
6. We heard Senior Counsel Sri.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan for the petitioner-school, Sri Kannanthanam, learned Amicus Curiae, Sri.P. Gopal for the parents of the students, Sri.S.Nirmal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CBSE, Sri.Babu Karukapadath appearing for the additional respondents 7 to 9 and Sri.A.J Varghese, Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBSE, who is the appellant, took us through various provisions of the Affiliation and Examination Bye-laws to specifically point out that unless the students had studied and took their examination in Standard VII in a School affiliated either to the CBSE or to a Board of the State or Union Territories, there could be no transfer effected to Standard IX, in an affiliated school of the CBSE. The point of entry in the CBSE Schools are at Standards I, V, IX and XI. The students had studied in an unaffiliated, unrecognized School in the academic year 2017-18 for Standard VII and W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::12::
continued in that school for Standard IX in the academic year 2018-19 too. No new admission could be made after 30th of August of a particular year without special sanction of the Chairman. The special sanction, it was explained, was only insofar as the transfer and admission being made, after the crucial date and the Chairman has no authority to exempt the stipulation of a pass in a qualifying examination or an equivalent qualifying examination, in Standard VII as provided in the Examination Bye-laws. It is also specifically pointed out that the various communications to the School, in response to the affiliation-application specifically cautioned them not to start functioning of the school, unless an affiliation is received. Flouting such specific, repeated directions, the School had commenced its functioning and had also admitted students and continued them for a long number of years, here with respect to the 14 students for nine years, without an affiliation. The learned Standing Counsel also urge that the School did not satisfy the condition of land especially of a compact land of extent of 2 W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::13::
acres being mandatory and the statutory mandate of a recognition being obtained from the State Government as stipulated in Section 18 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, [herein after for brevity the "RTE Act"].
8. Sri. Ibrahim Khan appearing for the petitioner-School would submit that the children were continued in the School on the bona fide belief that an affiliation would be obtained. Reliance is placed on Ext.P9 judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court which specifically directed consideration of the affiliation without insisting on the compactness of land; for which the learned Single Judge found no stipulation in the Bye-laws. It is also argued that the students having been admitted in Standard IX in an affiliated School and having now stood for the examinations of Standard IX, conducted by that affiliated School, definitely could be continued in Standard X. It is also contended that Ext.P9 had specifically directed an inspection to be conducted which was carried out and report submitted as per W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::14::
Ext.P12, as early as in January, 2017. The CBSE had slept over the inspection report and had issued a communication at Ext.P10 dated 03.10.2017, after the Commencement of the academic year. The Inspection Team as directed in Ext.P9, by Ext.P12 report found absolute compliance with all the affiliation norms. The report having been placed before the CBSE in January 2017, quite prior to the commencement of the academic year 2017-18 there should have been a consideration before such commencement. The sad plight of the students accentuated by the lethargy displayed by the CBSE, project sufficient circumstance to allow the writ petition. If provisional affiliation is granted to the petitioner from the academic year 2017-18 then CBSE could be directed to consider the application afresh in accordance with Ext.P9 judgment, looking at Ext.P12 inspection report; argues the petitioner.
9. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the CBSE points out that the condition of land and extent is not satisfied as also the certificates to be furnished from the Revenue authorities being not in the W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::15::
proforma as stipulated in the Bye-laws. There was also a complaint received from the 7th respondent which was specifically put to the School after the inspection report was obtained. In fact, the complaint discloses that the lease itself is void. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge had never directed in Ext.P9 that the conditions as available in the Bye-laws be eschewed and had only mentioned that there was no stipulation noticed in the Bye-laws which would require the property to be kept as one whole and contiguous. A consideration even as directed in Ext.P9, is only to be in accordance with the Bye-laws applicable.
10. Sri.P.Gopal appearing for the 10th respondent who represents the parents and students, would first point out the Affiliation Bye-laws of 1998 which were applicable to the School at the time when a consideration was directed by Ext.P9. This did not provide for the land to be contiguous or existing as one whole. The Bye-laws are also relied on to contend that the School has been following the prescribed approved courses of study up to Standard VIII and what W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::16::
is pending is the formal affiliation required under the Bye-laws and enrollment in the list of such Schools. Going by the directions in Ext.P9 judgment, as also the Inspection Committee report the compliance of the condition is a given fact and this Court could direct affiliation to be granted from the year 2017-18 itself, since the inspection report was with the CBSE in January, 2017, long prior to the commencement of the next academic year. The learned Counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M.V.B English Medium School [(2018) 2 KLT 795] wherein the learned Judges found that there is no basis for the stipulation that the land required, exists contiguously.
11. Sri.Babu Karukapadath, argues on the basis of the detailed counter affidavit filed by the respondents 7 to 9. The documents produced therein according to him shows the fraud employed by the so-called trustees in seeking affiliation from the CBSE. The lease executed at Ext.R2(a), for a period beyond three years is void insofar as Section 56 of the W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::17::
Wakf Act, 1995; as it existed at the time of execution of the deed. Even later when amendments were brought in on 01.11.2013, there was a specific requirement for the Wakf Board to publish the details of the lease and invite bids in at least one leading national and regional newspaper. There is a suit filed before the Wakf Tribunal, to circumvent which the Trustees had sought to obtain orders from the Wakf Board ratifying the lease. The ratification made by the Wakf Board on extraneous consideration was set aside twice, by two different Division Benches of this Court as is seen from Exts.R7(c) and (d). The land proffered by the Trust for the purpose of the School, includes a Mosque, the adjacent burial ground, Madrasa and an Arabic College which are existing in the compact land as available on the western side of the road, opposite to the property in which the School building is situated. This is the total extent of property now projected as available for the playground of the School, by the Trust. The various properties as described in the Schedule to the lease deed also lies within a radius of W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::18::
3Km and are not contiguously lying.
12. Sri.Kannanthanam, learned Senior Counsel, took us elaborately through the Examination Bye-laws and expresses anguish insofar as the illegality perpetrated on the students by continuing them in the petitioner school. Specifically pointing out that it will be difficult for this Court to issue any orders directing continuance of the students in Standard IX, with reference to the Bye-laws of the CBSE; with which we will deal with, the learned Senior Counsel also proposes an escape valve in the interest of the students. It is pointed out that permitting publication of the results of the examinations which they took in the affiliated School for the purpose of continuation in Standard X in that affiliated School would go squarely against the Bye-laws. But there has been instances when the State Government had permitted students in unaffiliated, unrecognized Schools studying in Standard VIII and IX to be validly admitted to the X Standard on the basis of an examination conducted; in the year 2014-15 and again in the year 2017-18. The W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::19::
learned Senior Counsel specifically refers to G.O(Rt) No.1292/2015/Gen.Edn dated 30.03.2015 and G.O(Rt) No.1235/2017/Gen.Edn. Dated 03.05.2017. If the Government issues similar orders the students could be continued in recognized schools where the State syllabus is followed and is affiliated to the State Board. The CBSE sadly, has no such elbow-room is the submission of the Amicus.
13. The learned Senior Government Pleader would alertly point out that the G.O dated 30.03.2015 indicated that it would not create a precedent. The Government had examined the case in those years and had offered a mitigation, which, if continued in all the subsequent years would only lead to encouraging the unrecognized unaffiliated schools to continue their operations; eventually banking upon the Government to grant a relaxation insofar as the admission to the secondary stream. This exercise if continued as a regular practice would result in sharp practices being continued putting the unsuspecting students to jeopardy and seriously hampering standards of education which W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::20::
the Government is constantly striving to improve. Sri. Varghese also placed before us the decision reported in JT 1998 (4) SC 105 (CBSE & Another v. P.Sunil Kumar & Ors.) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had deprecated the practice of issuing interim orders, clearly against the Bye-laws on misplaced sympathies, which was held to result in subversion of law.
14. We notice the contention of the School that the Affiliation Bye-laws of 1998 do not specifically provide for the land to be contiguous. The contention is raised to assert that the consideration directed as per Ext. P9 has to be only as per the Bye-laws of 1998.
Later, the provision has been altered and the Affiliation Bye-laws of 2018 expressly insist that the land on which the School is located should necessarily be a 'contiguous single plot of land'. We agreee that the consideration as directed in Ext.P9 should be in accordance with the Bye-laws of 1998 but we have a different opinion about the land stipulation as found in that Bye-laws. Even going by the Affiliation Bye-laws of 1998, we are of the opinion that it should W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::21::
be lying as a single plot of land, since the prescription as per Clause 3(ii) of Chapter II of the Affiliation Bye-laws is 'must have about 2 Acres (or as otherwise permitted measurement) of land and a building constructed on a part of land and proper playgrounds on the remaining land'(sic). The stipulation that the School building should be constructed on a part of the land and proper playgrounds provided, on the remaining land would specifically require this Court to draw an inference that even without express words of contiguously lying land, there could be found such a requirement as per the condition as seen from the Bye- laws. In this context, we also have to notice Appendix VI- Certificate of Land, which is a mandatory requirement to be issued by the District Magistrate or Registering Authority of the area in which the land is situated. Appendix VI specifically provides for a Certificate to the effect that 'It is certified that the said entire land comprises of a single plot of land'(sic). Read together, we have to find that there is a requirement that the School building and the playground should be W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::22::
in one contiguously lying plot even as per the Bye-laws of 1998. The express words brought in, in the Bye-laws of 2018 is to put all doubts at rest and is clarifactory in nature.
15. In this context, we have to examine whether Ext.P9 judgment of this Court ties the hands of the CBSE, in so far as prohibiting a contention that the land proffered for establishing the educational institution should be a single plot and contiguously lying land. The learned Single Judge in Ext.P9 noticed that he could not locate any provision under the Affiliation Bye-laws with respect to the mandatory availability of 1.5 Acres of land, where School building is situated and hence found the order of the CBSE, challenged therein as Ext.P7, to be suffering from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality. We have already noticed that the Affiliation Bye-laws definitely contains a stipulation that there should be 2 Acres of land for the purpose of affiliation. The dispute also is only on whether it should be contiguously lying or not. The learned Single Judge, W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::23::
after setting aside Ext.P7, directed that after inspection, if the CBSE is satisfied of the petitioner having the requisite land as per the Affiliation Bye- laws, then the petitioner should be permitted to submit an application seeking affiliation for the academic session 2017-2018. Hence, the earlier finding that there was no stipulation as to the extent of land, stands effaced and the learned Single Judge has merely directed the consideration of the application, in accordance with the Affiliation Bye-laws and only on the conditions therein being satisfied. We also notice the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in that writ petition that though the extent of plot is stipulated in the Affiliation Bye-laws, there was no requirement for having the entire area in the plot where the School building is situated. We have found on an interpretation of the specific condition with respect to the land and the Appendix in which the Certificate is to be furnished, that the Affiliation Bye-laws of 1998 also insisted on the same being a contiguous plot.
W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::24::
16. We also cannot accept the contention of the Sri.P.Gopal, that Mythri Vidyabhavan English Medium School(supra) stands against that stipulation. Therein the issue was with respect to the issuance of No-
objection Certificate by the State Government for the purpose of affiliation to the CBSE. The State Government had brought out certain guidelines, in which there was a stipulation that the Institution should have minimum 3 Acres of land, out of which 2 Acres should be contiguously lying. The Supreme Court has found that the rigid requirement as issued by the State of Kerala is only with a view to unnecessarily burden the Institution with an onerous and arbitrary condition, which the State did not have the authority so to do. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also noticed the fact that the CBSE has stipulated different conditions for different areas taking into consideration the various factors including terrain of the land, population etc; to stipulate different conditions for distinct areas. Hence, the interference made was only with the stipulation as made by the State Government W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::25::
and the conditions as stipulated by the CBSE were upheld. Here, the condition of 2 Acres of land lying contiguous is a stipulation under the Bye-laws of the CBSE itself and there is no argument addressed of the CBSE having made any relaxation based on any distinct parameters applicable to the area dependent upon the population or terrain. We also have to observe that the contention of the petitioner itself is that they have the required extent of property, but the playground existing on an adjacent property, lies just across a public road which runs between the playground and the property on which the school building exists. The petitioner also asserts that there is now a foot over-bridge constructed to provide access to the playground without even crossing the road.
17. The School had placed reliance on the inspection report and the photographs produced, which, according to them, would show that the total extent of property is only divided by an eight meter road. It is the contention of the School that the property was lying as a contiguously whole land. The road was W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::26::
provided from the property of the Jama-ath itself on the request made by the local people to provide an access into the nearby river. It is also pointed out that there is a foot over-bridge constructed over the road, which provides access to the students and staff of the School to the property lying on the opposite of the building, in which the School has provided the playground. Ext.P12 inspection report also indicates that the School has 3.56 Acres of land. However, the inspection report specifically found that the playground is not part of the School campus and is at a distance of 8 meters from the campus of the School connected by an over-bridge. We would have thought that the aforesaid provision of a foot over-bridge as more than satisfying the conditions, but for the allegations made by respondents 7 to 9. The extent had to be satisfied as stipulated in the Bye-laws and if the two properties were merely separated by a road, then there could have been a consideration made; especially when the staff and students had free access to the two properties by way of the foot bridge. But the allegation W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::27::
now raised is of the properties in the lease deed existing as different parcels over a three kilometer radius. Definitely the Bye-laws of 1998 could not be taken as permitting such distinct parcels of land; even if the entire extent is not required to be one compact plot.
18. Ext.R7(a) is the deed of lease made by the Perumattom Muslim Jama-ath Committee represented by its President to V.M. Educational and Charitable Trust. The President of the Jama-ath Committee and the Chairman of the Trust are the very same persons. We also see that the deed was executed on 02.08.2013, on which date Section 56 of the Waqf Act, 1995 [for brevity, the Act of 1995] provided a restriction, on the power to grant lease on Waqf properties. Admittedly, the property belongs to a Waqf. Section 56(1) of the Act of 1995 provides that a lease or sub-lease for any period exceeding three years, of any immovable property which is Waqf property, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the deed or instrument of waqf or in any other law for the time being in force, be void and is W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::28::
of no effect. The lease deed as is required by the CBSE is for a period of thirty years rendering it void.
19. In this context, we have to notice that after the inspection report, the CBSE had issued repeated communications to the School pointing out the complaint received from the 7th respondent as also the non-compliance of the specific requirements in the Bye-laws, especially that of land as also the lack of recognition of the State Government required under the RTE Act. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBSE has produced the said documents, by a Memo dated 05.04.2019 in the writ appeal. Annexure A2, A3 & A4 are respectively dated 15.03.2017, 14.07.2017 and 02.10.2017. The said communications have been specifically noticed in Ext.P18, the rejection order of the CBSE, which has been challenged in the writ petition by way of an amendment. The School has no contention that the said communications were not received. In fact, the communication dated 02.10.2017 is produced as Ext.P10 in the writ petition. Annexure A2 specifically refers to the complaint of one W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::29::
Mr.Ibrahim, the 7th respondent and sought clarification on the exact size of both the plots individually and submission of two Land Certificates of both plots separately as per Appendix VI prescribed in the Affiliation Bye-laws, duly signed by the competent authority. The Complaint of the 7th respondent was also enclosed along with the communication. The School was also required to submit the permission obtained from the public authority in so far as the construction of a foot over-bridge on a public road. The CBSE cannot be accused of sleeping over the matter after the inspection report was furnished. It had sought clarifications from the petitioner which were not satisfactorily responded to. The land certificates were not furnished in the proforma available in the Bye-laws and there was also no recognition granted by the State Government.
20. We stress on the aspect of no Certificate having been furnished by the School in Appendix VI as provided in the Bye-laws of 1998. There are Land Certificates produced along with the writ petition, W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::30::
none of which are in the Proforma as provided in the Bye-laws. The discrepancies were again informed to the School by Annexure A3 & 4, later communications of 14.07.2017 and 02.10.2017. The non-compliance of the land requirement and the absence of recognition were specifically pointed out. To Annexure A2, i.e. Ext.P10, there was a reply submitted at Ext.P11, which does not produce the Certificate in the Proforma as available in the Bye-laws. Appendix VI required certification in a particular manner by the revenue authorities, which is absent in the case of the petitioner-school.
21. In the above circumstances, we do not think that the School satisfies the condition of even the extent of land as provided in the Bye-laws, leave alone the requirement of the plot existing contiguously. There is no Certificate of Land furnished in accordance with the proforma available in the Bye-laws itself as Appendix-VI. We would not go into the specific contentions raised by respondents 7 to 9 based on the Commission Report filed in a suit, wherein it is indicated that the properties as described in the W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::31::
deed of lease lie as different parcels within a radius of 3 Kms. of a mosque; lest our observations interfere with a proper adjudication in the suit. Suffice it to state that it raises very serious doubts as to the extent of land available with the Trust and the Trust has not furnished Certificates of Land issued by the revenue authorities of the State; as required under the Bye-laws. As already held by us even the Bye-laws cannot be deemed to require the total extent as different parcels spread over a large area. Further we cannot but notice that the lease deed as placed on record, itself is a void document going by the provisions of the Waqf Act; seriously putting to peril the contention of the School and the Trust that they have a lease of land for 30 years, for the purpose of conducting the School. We cannot but refer also to the two decisions of this Court, separate Division Benches, which set aside the orders of the Wakf Board attempting to ratify the lease made by the Jama-ath Committee; as per Ext. R7(c) & R7(d). The land condition and the mandate of recognition by the State Government both W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::32::
remain as not complied by the petitioner; putting to serious peril the claim for affiliation by the CBSE.
22. On the requirement of recognition, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, Section 18 of the RTE Act mandates a recognition obtained from the State Government as a pre-requisite for the purpose of establishing a School within the State. We notice that even prior to the RTE Act, which was enforced in the year 2010, the CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws of 1998 required every School seeking affiliation with the Board to have prior recognition of the State/Union Territory Government as per Clause 3(1) of Chapter II of the Bye-laws of 1998. In addition to this, the application had to be forwarded by the State Government or with a No-objection Certificate from the Government. Though the application was forwarded with a No-objection Certificate of the State Government, admittedly there is no recognition as obtained from the State Government. The petitioner-School has a contention that they have applied for such recognition, which obviously has not been granted till date. We also W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::33::
notice that the RTE Act applies to Schools imparting elementary education as per definition Clause 2(n) and defines elementary education in Clause (f) as education from 1st Class to 8th Class. This is in consonance with the norms of affiliation of the CBSE, which also defines affiliation as meaning 'formal enrollment of a School among the list of approved Schools of the Board following prescribed/approved courses of studies up to Class VIII as well as those preparing students according to prescribed courses for the Board's Examinations'(sic). The CBSE affiliation norms also provides a classification in so far as the elementary education, from I to VIII Standards and the Secondary Education consisting of the IXth and Xth Standards with the Higher Secondary Education consisting of the XIth and XIIth Standards. Hence, the contention of the CBSE that the admission to the IXth Standard has to be only after a qualifying examination or an equivalent qualifying examination of a recognized elementary education having been completed from the 8th standard.
23. To understand the qualification required W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::34::
for admission to IXth Standard, we have to look at the Examination Bye-laws as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam.
6.1(a).A student seeking admission to any class in a 'School' will be eligible for admission to that Class only if he:xxxx (I) xxxx xxxxxx
(ii) has passed qualifying or equivalent qualifying examination making him eligible for admission to that Class;
xxxx xxxxx 6.4. No student shall be admitted or promoted to any subsequent higher class in any school unless he has completed the regular course of study of the class to which he was admitted at the beginning of the academic session and has passed the examination, at the end of the concerned academic session, qualifying him for promotion to the next higher class.
6.5 (i) for admissions upto Class VIII a child shall be admitted in a school at the commencement of the academic year or within such extended period as may be prescribed by the school(s) concerned.
Provided that no child shall be denied admission if such admission is sought subsequent to the extended period.
Provided further that any child
W.A No.288/2019&
WP(C) 37781/2018
::35::
admitted after the extended period shall complete his studies in such manner as may be prescribed by the school concerned as stipulated in Section 15 of THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT, 2009.
(ii) No student shall be admitted in Class IX and above in a school affiliated with the Board after 31st day of August of the year except with prior permission of the Chairman,CBSE/Competent Authority as may have been defined in the State/Union Territory Education Acts.The application for permission to grant admission after 31st of August shall be routed through the Principal of the school specifying the reasons which are unavoidable. The candidate shall complete the required percentage of attendance (75%) for Class IX, X, XI & XII as per Examination Bye laws of the Board to make him/her eligible for the examinations conducted by the Board/School. In such cases where the admission by the candidate could not be taken in a higher class by the stipulated date because of the late declaration of result by the Board in respect of the examinations conducted by the Board such permission would not be required, provided the candidate applied for admission within a fortnight of the declarion of the result.
7. Admission: Specific Requirements xxxx xxxx 7.2 Admission to Class IX in a school W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::36::
shall be open only to such a student who has passed class VIII examination from an Institution affiliated to this Board or to any recognized Board or is recognized by the Education Department of the Government of the State/U.T in which such an institution is located.
xxxx xxxx
8.Admission Procedure
(iv) In no case shall a student be admitted into a class higher than that for which he is entitled according to the transfer certificate.
xxxx xxxx
8.(vii) In case a student from an institution not affiliated to the Board seeks admission in a school affiliated to the Board, such a student shall produce a transfer certificate duly countersigned by an authority as indicated in the format given in Annexure-I
24. Clause 6.1.(ii) makes eligible a student seeking admission to any class in a school, only when he has passed qualifying or equivalent qualifying examination. Qualifying examination has been defined under the Explanation to 6.1 which explanation is extracted here under:
Explanation:
(a) A person who has been studying in W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::37::
an institution, which is not recognized by this Board or by any other recognized Board of Secondary Education or by the State/U.T.Government of the concerned place, shall not be admitted to any class of a "School" on the basis of Certificate(s) of such unrecognized institution attended by him earlier.
(b)'Qualifying Examination' for the purposes of this Byelaws means an examination the passing of which makes a student eligible for admission to a particular class; and 'equivalent examination' means an examination conducted by any recognized Board of Secondary Education/Indian University or an institution recognized by or affiliated to such Board/University and is recognized by this Board equivalent to the corresponding examination conducted by this Board or conducted by a "school" affiliated to/recognized by this Board.
25. From the extracted portions of the Examination Bye-Laws of,1995 as made available to us, Updated Upto January, 2013, qualifying examination means an examination the passing of which makes the student eligible for admission to a particular class, which has to be from a School affiliated to the CBSE itself read along with clause 7(2), underlined by us, for emphasis, in the above extract. Equivalent examination means an examination conducted by any W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::38::
recognized Board of Secondary Education or Indian University and is recognised by the CBSE or a school affilated to the CBSE. Clause 6.4 stipulate that no person shall be promoted or admitted to a higher class unless he has completed the regular course of study of the class to which he was admitted at the beginning of the academic session. Clause 6.5(ii) mandates that no student shall be admitted in class IX and above in a school affiliated with the Board after 31st of August of the year except with prior permission of the Chairman. Clause 7.2 again provides that admission to Class IX shall be opened only to a student who has passed Class VIII examination from an institution affiliated to CBSE or to any recognized Board or recognized by the Government of the State or the Union Territory.
26. In the instant case, the students have studied Standard VIII in the petitioner's school which is not recognized by the State or affiliated to the CBSE or any other Board or under the Board of the State Government. The Examination Bye-laws specifically stand against the students in so far as they being not W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::39::
permitted to be admitted in Standard IX of an affiliated School for reason of their having not acquired a pass in the Qualifying Examination or an Equivalent Qualifying Examination or continued in an affiliated school for the purpose of being promoted to the Xth Standard. We perfectly understand the predicament in which the students have been placed who have continued from the Ist standard to the IXth standard in an unrecognized school but are helpless especially looking at the binding precedents in P.Sunil Kumar & Ors. & Sunil Oraon(both supra).
27. On similar circumstances but when a large number of students were sought to be presented for examination from an unaffiliated school, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sunil Oraon(supra) noticed a number of binding precedents and held so:
14. Now, we would refer to the law settled by this Court in various judgments to the effect that interim orders of the nature passed in the present case are detrimental to education and its efficient management. As a matter of course, such interim orders should not be passed, as they are aberrations and it is subversive of academic discipline.
15. In Regional Officer, CBSE v. Sheena [(2003) 7 SCC 719] Peethambaran , this Court has observed: (SCC W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::40::
p. 724, para 6) "6. This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions."
16. In CBSE v. P. Sunil Kumar[(1998) 5 SCC 377] the institutions whose students were permitted to undertake the examination of the Central Board of Secondary Education were not entitled to appear in the examination. They were, however, allowed to appear in the examination under the interim orders granted by the High Court. In that context the Supreme Court observed: (SCC p. 381, para 4) "4. ... But to permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the Court and then to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of law and this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of the students."
17. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr.
Bansal[(1993) 4 SCC 401] the Supreme Court observed that such interim order is subversive of academic discipline. The relevant observations are as under: (SCC p. 403, para 7) "7. ... We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::41::
whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. ... The courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions."
18. Yet in another case i.e. in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P.[(1986) 2 scc 667] this Court held that: (SCC p. 678, para 10) "10. ... We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws."
19. In State of T.N. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute[(1991) 3 scc 87] this Court observed that the direction of admitting the students of unauthorised educational institutions and permitting them to appear at the examination has been looked on with disfavour and the students of unrecognised institutions who are not legally entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Educational Department of the Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and the High Court committed an error in granting permission to such students to appear at the public examination.
20. In CBSE v. Nikhil Gulati[(1998) 3 scc 5] this Court deprecated the practice followed by the High Court to issue direction and also observed that such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future.
21. In Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow[(1984) 1 scc 307] the Supreme Court observed: (SCC p.
310, para 3) "3. ... whenever a writ petition is filed provisional admission should not be given as a matter of course on the petition being admitted unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible."
W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::42::
22. In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale[(1992) 4 scc 435] it was held that the students of unrecognised and unauthorised educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being filed to appear in the examination and to be accommodated in recognised institutions. This Court observed: (SCC p. 439, para 12) "12. ... Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education."
23. Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institutions admitting the students without requisite recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against goes to show that the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing the undertakings the school nonchalantly continued the violations.
24. Students have suffered because of the objectionable conduct of the school. It shall be open to them to seek such remedy against the school as is available in law, about which aspect we express no opinion.
28. In an identical circumstance, by virtue of interim orders, 23 students had appeared for the examination conducted by the CBSE and certificates issued with a condition that the same would be subject to the result of the pending proceedings. A Division W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::43::
Bench of this Court disposed of the pending appeals and Original Petitions taking a sympathetic and compassionate view of the matter, being of the opinion that the students who have been permitted to take admission and who have appeared in the examination should not be allowed to suffer. The Division Bench directed that all the students who took the written examination for the Xth and XIIth classes in a non-affiliated Institution should be granted certificates pursuant to the declaration of the result without any restriction attached there under. The CBSE took the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which, the appeals were allowed in P.Sunil Kumar & Ors. (supra) Therein the students relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE v. Nikhil Gulati and Another [(1998) 3 SCC 5], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice followed by the High Court and also observed such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future; but did not interfere with the ultimate direction of the High Court on the ground that fond hopes have been raised in W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::44::
the minds of the students and it would be in-appropriate to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowing the appeal of the CBSE held so:
"We are unable to apply the reasoning given in the aforesaid case, inasmuch as there is no iota of material placed before us to indicate that the Central Board of Secondary Education, the appellants herein, either directly or indirectly had held out to the students at any point of time that the institutions in which they are prosecuting their studies have been affiliated or are going to be affiliated at a near future. We are conscious of the fact that our order setting aside the impugned directions of the High Court would cause injustice to these students. But to permit students of a unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the court and then to compel the W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::45::
Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of law and this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of students. In view of the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court as well as the interim orders issued by the single Judge in several petitions out of which the writ appeals arose and the writ petitions filed by the respondents stand dismissed."
29. We respectfully bow to the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforecited decisions. The admission to the IXth standard in a CBSE affiliated school can only be made if the student has appeared for the VIIIth standard examination and qualified from an affiliated school either under the CBSE or any other recognized Board or the Education Department of the State Government. No such recognition W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::46::
has been obtained by the petitioner's school and at the fag end of the academic year there could be no transfer to an affiliated school in the IXth Standard itself. Though the Chairman has the power to sanction an admission after 31st August of the year, the bye-laws does not confer any discretion on the Chairman to waive the condition of qualifying examination or the stipulation of an equivalent qualifying examination having been passed by the student. We also do not see any reason why the claim for affiliation has to be considered especially in the murky facts that has been placed before Court in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 7 to 9.
30. Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam, the learned Senior counsel has pointed out two Government Orders as issued by the State Government which permits even students who studied in the VIIIth and IXth standards in an unrecognized school to be admitted to the schools recognized by the Education Department of the State. We notice the contention of the learned Senior Government Pleader that it cannot be taken as a W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::47::
precedent as specified in the said order itself. It may also not be proper for us to issue any positive direction to the State Government to bring out any such Government Order. But however, the remedy definitely lies with the students and their parents to approach the Government for redressal in the matter. If the students approach the Government we can only hope the Government would consider their case sympathetically, as was done on the previous occasions which again would not create a precedent.
31. Before leaving with the matter we have to express our deepest anguish, at the manner in which mushrooming educational institutions have put the future of minor students to serious peril and jeopardy and in the present case with the active participation of the parents. At the first instance, when we called the parents, three of them turned up and insisted that they continued the students in the school since the students were happy with the conditions in the school. We are surprised that such an attitude has been taken which we notice might be for the reason that the W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::48::
students now put to peril are the children of the members of the Trust and a teacher of the said institution. We can only say that the parents have behaved in a most irresponsible manner in continuing their wards in an institution which had no affiliation to any recognized Board. Despite that, we contemplated imposition of damages to each of the students to ensure the loss occasioned for the years they lost in a unrecognised and unaffiliated institution, especially since the students loss cannot be ignored even if it was ocassioned with the active connivance of the parents. However, we see that the Trust does not have any properties and an imposition of damages would be difficult of recovery. We desist from imposing damages also since, if the State Government considers the case of the students favourably then they could be continued in Standard X in a school affiliated to the Board of Secondary Education of the State and the students may not loose their precious years spent in an unrecognixzed institution. Then the students would be entitled to invoke the remedy for damages before the W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::49::
appropriate forum, if they so desire. We, with a heavy heart dismiss the Writ Petition and allow the Writ Appeal setting aside the interim order. We direct that the petitioner-school shall be closed down immediately and the Educational Authorities of the State, in the District, shall ensure such closure. The parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
We especially place on record our deepest gratitude and appreciation for the assistance rendered to the Court as also the parties by laerned Senior Counsel Sri. Kannanthanam and learned Counsel Sri.Gopal.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE.
jma/sp/cms/06/04/19 W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::50::
APPENDIX OF WA 288/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 AMENDMENT IN AFFILIATION BYE-LAWS DATED 29/12/2016.
ANNEXURE A2 LETTER DATED 15/03/2017. ANNEXURE A3 LETTER DATED 14/07/2017. ANNEXURE A4 LETTER DATED 02/11/2017. W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::51::
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37781/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER (MS) NO.48/2015/G.EDN. DATED 12/02/2015 ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT GRANTING NOC TO THE PETITIONER SCHOOL.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21/04/2014 ISSUED BY THE HDFC BANK LIMITED, VELLOORKUNNAM MUVATTUPUZHA BRANCH FOR THE PAYMENT OF RS.75,000/- TOWARDS AFFILIATION FEES.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION NO.SL04201516101320 DATED 14/04/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CBSE/AFF/SL-
01320-1516/799867 DATED 25.11/12.2014 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/02/2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A A TRUE COPY OF THE GPS SURVEY REPORT OF THE LOCATION.
EXHIBIT P6 B A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 18/02/2015 SWORN IN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P6 C A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE IRON OVER BRIDGE.
EXHIBIT P6 D A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SCHOOL BUILDING.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CBSE/AFF/SL-
01320-1516/1113651 DATED 25/07/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::52::
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 19/08/2016.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 21/10/2016 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.28602 OF 2016(A). EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CBSE/AFF/SL-
01320-1516/2017 DATED OCTOBER, 2017 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (AFFIN) UNDER THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04/01/2018 WITH ITS DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A8-604/16 DATED 19/07/2018 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE LATEST PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER SCHOOL SHOWING THE IRON BRIDGE.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RECOGNITION DATED 22/11/2018 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT FILED UNDER RULE 14 SUB FULE8(1) R.T.E. RULES.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENSION PROVISIONAL AFFILIATION NO.CBSE/AFF/931007/EX-01416- 1617/2015/1050484 DATED 21/03/2015 ISSUED BY THE CBSE TO THE MANAGER, KTC'S NECT PUBLIC SCHOOL, KOTHAMANGALAM.
EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.NIL DATED 19/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE PARENT REPRESENTATIVE SMT. JAYASREE T.K., ADDRESSED TO THE PRINCIPAL KTC'S NECT PUBLIC SCHOOL, CHERUVATOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM ALONG WITH THE LIST OF STUDENTS.
EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CBSE/AFF/SL-
01320-1516/2018/1442366 DATED 09/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (AFF.) W.A No.288/2019& WP(C) 37781/2018 ::53::
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW DELHI.
EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 15/01/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (AFF.) CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, NEW DELHI.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3 A A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED NO.3596/2013 OF SRO MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT R3 B A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 21/01/2013 ALONG WITH CONNECTED RELEVANT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN W.O.S. NO.45/2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE WAQF TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT R3 C A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/06/2015 IN OP (WAKF) NO.39/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT R3 D A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/06/2018 IN OP (WAKF) NO.64/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.