Kerala High Court
The Manager, K.M.M.U.P. School, ... vs The State Of Kerala And Ors. on 5 October, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995KER243, AIR 1995 KERALA 243
JUDGMENT
1. The proceedings of this petition bring before this Court a total lack of co-ordination amongst the statutory authorities inter se and a complete non-appliction of mind with regard to orders passed by this Court. These observations are made with fervent consideration when the authorities dealing with the problem of education of students are required to approach this Court every now and then and if the authorities had looked into the situation on a basis, much time and energy of the authorities of the educational institutions would not have been suffered from flooding this Court unnecessarily.
2. The institution is a very small one, but a very important one not only from the point of view of the educational institutions but also from the point of view of ever increasing population of students.
3. The necessary matters were available in the proceedings of the earlier O.P. (O.P. No. 8733 of 1986). The petition related to the question of increasing one division to the petitioner-school to make it up 19 divisions in all in 1985-86. This permission was granted initially by the Assistant Educational Officer (respondent No. 5). This decision for the grant of 19 divisions was also confirmed by the order dated January 18, 1986, of the Deputy Director of Education (respondent No. 3), which was a divisional authority in the hierarchy. In spite of this confirmation of the Deputy Director of Education on January 18, 1986, the District Educational Officer (respondent No. 4) rejected permission and did not sanction the 19th division. It is necessary to state that the number of exhibits such as Exts. P1, P2, P7, P9 and P11 which are mentioned in the earlier petition, O.P. No. 8733 of 1986 were the same as in the present petition before me. It is recorded in the said judgment that even after rejection of this permission at the district level as stated above, the said order appear to have been confirmed by Ext. P7 (page 18), Ext. P9 (page 20) and also by Ext. Pll (page 24). This Court has observed as follows:--
"Presumably, unaware of what was happening, the District Educational Officer passed Ext. P2 order in the meanwhile, varying Ext. P1. He could not have done this, when that was affirmed by a higher authority. Ext. P2 was confirmed by Exts. P7, P9 and P11. There is an inconsistency between Exts. P2 and P5. If Ext. P5 stands, the staff fixation in Ext. P1 is proper. Ext. P5 is not seen challenged or varied."
It is in this situation that the Court held that the reasons stated in Ext. P2 were untenable. As seen from Ext. P3 the matter was remanded to the Government for reconsideration. It is pertinent to note that there was no counter-affidavit on behalf of any of the respondents to the earlier petition. The Court is also asked to take similar action in the absence of the counter. At this stage I took time and the learned Government Pleader was helpless in the situation and could only assist me from the record of the petition.
4. In the impugned order (Ext. P13 -- page 27), in paragraph 4, it is specifically stated that after the previous judgment of this Court, the present petitioner by application dated November 7, 1988 represented to the Government that the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram by his proceedings dated January 15, 1986 recorded a finding that the school has sufficient strength and accommodation for 20 divisions and on the basis thereto prayed that additional two divisions may be sanctioned as found by the Deputy Director of Education.
5. By the impugned order respondent No. 1 completely ignored the question of sanctioning of additional divisions for the year 1985-86, being considered in 1989 and still insisted on a re-verification of students' strength and has observed that in the absence thereof the school is not entitled to additional divisions as per the rules. The picture seen through the proceedings hereinbefore leaves no manner of doubt that unnecessarily the petitioners are required to pass through such procedures which ultimately fetch no relief in their favour. So much so, even if the recommendations that are already confirmed appear in the impugned order, the petitioners are driven to this Court. Apart from this the respondents show that this Court is left to decide the petition in the absence of the counter. This is a petition of 1989. I am left to decide this petition on the earlier submissions of the learned counsel for the Government. He was helpless because he could not ask for any adjournment in the petition of the year 1989.
6. The records show that there is a requirement of 20 divisions and that in the year of 1986 the present position is not at all difficult to imagine. All that this Court can do at least to issue a direction to all the respondents to sanction 20 divisions and to treat the said sanction as of the order of 1986. The respondents are further directed to proceed with the consideration of the situation where it is necessary to sanction additional divisions because of the spread of literacy and education in the State. It is not necessary even to imagine that needs for grant of more classes and divisions is one of the ever wanting demands of the situation. A hope is expressed that the respondents would adopt a people oriented approach to the institution with attitude to deliver the just demands on the spot.
7. The respondents are hereby directed to sanction 20 divisions to the petitioner-school as of the year 1986 and proceed to consider the feasibility of additional accommodation in the light of the above observations. Needless to say that respondents will have to take immediate steps in the matter of disbursement of salary. Therefore, I hereby grant prayer No. 3 also. It is unnecessary to fix the time bound programme in regard to disbursement in view of the hope expressed hereinbefore. For all the above reasons the petition stands allowed as above. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.