Kerala High Court
Fr. D. Selvarajan, Corporate Manager vs State Of Kerala, The Director Of Public ... on 21 November, 2007
Author: K.M. Joseph
Bench: H.L. Dattu, K.M. Joseph
JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J.
1. Since the writ appeals and the writ petitions are connected, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Writ Appeals are filed against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 17864 of 2007 and W.P. (C) No. 20029 of 2007 which have been filed by Fr. D. Selvarajan and Fr. K.J. Vincent respectively. The prayer in W.P. (C) No. 17864 of 2007 is to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the Additional Director of Public Instruction (General) Thiruvananthapuram. In W.P. (C) No. 20029 of 2007 the petitioner challenges the very same order passed by the Additional Director of Public Instruction which is produced as Ext.P12 in the said writ petition. The further relief sought for in the writ petition is to consider Ext.P2 request and grant recognition to the petitioner's High School 'Our Lady of Assumption H.S.'
3. The short facts necessary to appreciate the dispute between the parties are as follows:
The 4th respondent in W.A. No. 2606 of 2007, namely the Manager, Vrindavan High School, Vlathankara, Neyyattinkara, had preferred W.P. (C) No. 14112 of 2005 before this Court contending that Fr. K.J. Vincent is running an un-recognized High School and this infringes the right of the 4th respondent who is running an aided High school in the vicinity. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment produced in W.P. (C) No. 17864 of 2007. Therein, the learned Single Judge took note of the fact that there was an enquiry conducted by the departmental authorities and this Court being convinced of the same, directed the departmental authorities to take follow up actions in the matter. It is pursuant to the said judgment that the impugned order in both the writ petitions came to be passed.
4. The foremost question raised by Fr. D. Selvarajan is as follows: He would contend that he is the corporate manager of the Latin Catholic Schools, Dioceses of Neyyattinkara. He would rely on Ext.P1 authorisation given by the Vicar General and a perusal of the said exhibit would show that he is authorised to file writ petition for St. Peter's U.P. School Vlathankara. According to him, he is the manager of 18 L.P. Schools, 10 U.P. Schools and 4 High Schools in the State. According to him, it is imperative that he be issued with a notice before any order in the nature of Ext.P4 is passed, but in violation of the principles of natural justice and without issuing any notice to him the impugned order came to be passed. By the impugned order the Additional Director of Public Instruction has proceeded to hold after referring to the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance wing of the Education Department that an unrecognized High School under the name 'Our Lady of Assumption H.S.' is functioning in the compound of an aided middle school named St. Peter's UPS which is the main feeding school of Vrindavan High School run by the 4th respondent. Thereafter it is stated in the order that the said enquiry was conducted by Sri. K. Sasidharan, the then Joint Director of Public Instruction by serving enquiry notice No.V2/49813/05 dated 21.2.2006 to the Headmaster, St. Peter's UPS, Vlathankara and the Headmaster, Vrindavan H.S. Vlathankara and that the departmental enquiry had clearly proved that the manager of the Our Lady of Assumption High School had committed fraud on the department and thereby caused huge loss to the Government and injustice to the poor students of that area. It was in the above circumstances that the Manager of the St. Peter's UP School, Vlathankara was directed to cease functioning of the unaided unrecognized Our Lady of Assumption High School, Vlathankara immediately and issue the transfer certificate of students studying in the above school to the nearby Government/Aided Schools immediately. It was also stated in the said order that if the Manager of St. Peter's UP School, Vlathankara fails to comply with the said direction, the department would be forced to take urgent action by disqualifying the Managership and necessary action would be taken by the department for the withdrawal of the recognition of aided St. Peter's UP School. The District Educational Officer, Neyyattinkara was also directed to take urgent steps in that regard and enquire whether the directions in that order are carried out by the Manager.
5. There is no dispute that Fr. D. Selvarajan was not heard in the matter. In fact, a perusal of Ext.P2 judgment would appear to show that Fr. D. Selvarajan is not made a party in the said writ petition and Fr. K.J. Vincent was arrayed as the first respondent. The matter was proceeded with on the basis that he is the manager of St Peter's UP School also. In fact, a perusal of the affidavit filed by Fr. K.J. Vincent in the earlier writ petition would show that he had contended that he is not the manager of St. Peter's UP School. The writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction, pursuant to which Ext.P4 came to be passed without notice to Fr. D. Selvarajan. Fr. D. Selvarajan has also produced certain documents (Exts.P5 to P7) to probabilise his case that he is the corporate manager of St. Peter's UP School. According to him, the finding that the 'Our Lady of Assumption High school' is functioning within the compound of the St. Peter's UP School is without any basis. He has no objection against the closing down of the said school. He is aggrieved only by the direction given which would result in withdrawal of the recognition of the St. Peter's UP School.
6. In W.P. (C) No. 20029 of 2007 the very same order is challenged by Fr. K.J. Vincent. Apart from the prayer to quash the impugned order Ext.P12, he also sought for a direction to consider the application for recognition of his school. According to him, he is running an unaided High School in the name of 'Our Lady of Assumption High School'. It is stated that the said school was started in the academic year 2005-06 pursuant to the notification issued by the Government. He applied for recognition of the school as per Ext.P2. It is also stated that there is need of people for better education and uplifting the downtrodden, the people at large irrespective of caste, creed and religion decided to have a high school with better facilities. Accordingly, the petitioner who is a parish priest and parish council of Assumption Forane Church decided to start a school to suit the educational necessity of the area and the school started functioning after complying with all other formalities with the basic infrastructure. He would further submit that the third respondent visited the school on 21.6.2005 and verified the records including the infrastructures and other facilities and forwarded the same to the second respondent in 2005. There is a reference to the writ petition filed by the 4th respondent which culminated in passing of the impugned order.
7. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
8. As far as the question whether notice was issued to Fr. D. Selvarajan is concerned, there is no serious dispute. When he being the corporate manager of St. Peter's UP School and he is visited with adverse consequences by the impugned order dated 10.5.2007, he should have been put on notice and heard before an order in the nature impugned was passed. Therefore, we think that Ext.P4 in W.P. (C) No. 17864 of 2007 requires to be interfered with and quashed and we do so. Ext.P12 in W.P. (C) No. 20029 of 2007 corresponding to Ext.P4 in the other writ petition proceeds on the basis that the school is being run in the very same compound where St. Peter's UP School is situated. This is disputed by Fr. K.J. Vincent. He has produced documents (Annexures I to VIII) to probabilise his contention in this regard. Since the finding of the authorities is that an unauthorized school is functioning within the compound belonging to the St.Peter's UP School, the said order requires to be vacated and the matter be remitted back to the authorities for decision on merits after hearing the parties concerned. We feel that Ext.P12 in W.P. (C) No. 20029 of 2007 also requires to be interfered with. It is for the petitioner K.J. Vincent to produce documents to probabilise his case that the school is located in a separate plot and that it is not located within the compound of St. Peter's UP School. Accordingly, we quash Ext.P12 in W.P. (C) No. 20029 of 2007. The third respondent Director of Public Instruction is directed to consider the matter afresh with opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as also the contesting respondent in the writ petitions and take a decision in accordance with law. Such a decision will be taken by the third respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the parties to produce such materials as they feel advised to substantiate their contentions before the authority concerned.
9. So far as the question regarding the grant of second relief is concerned, Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai, learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in W.A. No. 2606 of 2007 would point out that such a prayer is not justified. According to him, it is settled law that an application for recognition of starting of a school can be processed only if it is received in pursuance to the notifications issued under Rule 2A of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules. There is no such notification, he contends. Sri. Aravindakshan Pillai would also rely on a decision of the apex Court in State of Kerala v. Prasad 2007 (3) KLT 531 for the proposition that the application received otherwise than pursuant to the notification issued under Rule 2A of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules cannot be considered. We only direct that if the application preferred by Fr. K.J. Vincent is in pursuance to the notification as mandated in the Kerala Education Rules, the same will be considered and decision taken in accordance with law bearing in mind the proposition laid down by the apex Court in the decision cited above.
In the light of the disposal of the writ petitions no further orders are necessary in the writ appeals. Accordingly they are closed.
In view of the order passed in the writ petitions, all pending interlocutory applications would stand closed.