The Manager, v. The Government Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/5TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 20622 of 2014 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

--------------------- THE MANAGER, ST.MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL, KRARIYELY, KOMBANAD P.O., VENGOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 001.

2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 001.

3. THE MANAGER, MARKAUMA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VENGOOR, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683 546.

R1 & R2 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED R3 BY ADV. SRI.BASIL MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

vmr

WP(C).No. 20622 of 2014 (C) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17/6/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/12/2000 IN WPC NO.22451/2000 OF THIS COURT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE vmr

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.20622/2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by non sanctioning of additional Higher Secondary courses. The Six Member Committee constituted to find out the educational need did not recommend the petitioner's school nor the school belonging to the third respondent. The petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in O.P.Nos.21838/2000 and connected cases dated 13/12/2000, produced herein as Ext.P2, rendered as early as on 2000 to substantiate his claim for educational need and backwardness of the area.

2.

The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated therein that the Six Member Committee made a report in the year 2013 and found that there is no educational need and accordingly, the petitioner's claim was rejected. 3.

I am of the view that the findings in the year 2000 have no relevance to find the educational need in the year 2013. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms