The Government's decision was found to be in violation of the Kerala Education Act, Kerala Education Rules, and various constitutional provisions, including Arts.14, 19, 21, 30, 38, 39, 39A, 41, and 46. The Court emphasized the need for compliance with the norms and guidelines for the selection of schools for Plus Two Course and the importance of considering educational need, social and educational backwardness, and the local area as the unit for assessment.

G. Sivarajan, J.

These Writ Petitions relate to the grant of Higher Secondary Course popularly known as 'Plus-two Course' to the High Schools - Government and Private - Both Aided and recognised Unaided in the State for the academic year 2000-2001. All the petitioners except the petitioner in O.P. 21667/2000 are aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their respective Schools in the order dated 26.7.2000 issued by the Government pursuant to the directions contained in the common judgment dated 7.7.2000 of the Division Bench in O.P. No. 11779 of 1997 and connected cases. O.P. Nos. 21699/2000, 22448/2000 and 22254/2000 are filed in respect of Government High Schools, O.P. Nos. 21854/2000,22142/2000,22253/2000,21667/2000, 22460/2000,21606/2000, 22462/2000, 21979/2000,22236/2000 and 24053/2000 are in respect of Private Aided Schools and O.P. Nos. 22670/2000 and 21625/2000 are in respect of Private Unaided Schools. Except in O.P. No. 21667/2000, petitioners in all the other O.Ps. seek for direction to the Government to grant Plus Two Course to their Schools. In O.P. 21667/2000 the teachers and staff of a Vocational Higher Secondary School to which Plus Two Course is granted as per Government Order dated 26.7.2000 challenge the said grant. In O.P. Nos. 21979/2000 and 22670/2000 there is also a challenge to the grant of Plus Two Course to the nearby Schools. The High Schools involved in O.P.Nos. 22448/2000(Govt.), 22254/2000(Govt.), 22142/2000(aided ), 22253/2000( aided), 21667/ 2000( aided ), 21606/2000(A), 22462/2000(A), 21979/2000(A) and 24053/2000(A) were recommended by the District Level Committee. The schools involved in O.P. Nos. 21699/2000(G), 21854/2000(A), 22460/2000(A) and 22236/2000(A) were not recommended by the District Level Committee and hence the Government did not consider the said Schools for the grant. The Schools in O.P. 22670/2000(UA) and O.P. 21625/2000(UA), though recommended by the District Level Committee, were not considered by the Government for the grant on the ground that there are eligible Government and Aided Schools available in the district for the grant.

40. Now let me examine as to whether the decision taken by the Government in the Government order dated 26.7.2000 conforms to the above. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the administrative action must satisfy the test of reasonableness and that reasonableness is inbuilt in Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. So, the Court, while exercising judicial review of administrative action under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, will have to bear in mind the background of Arts.14 and 21 as well as Arts.226 and 32 of the Constitution as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions which I have already mentioned above. As already stated in Tata Cellular's case ((1994) 6 SCC 651) and reiterated in Sola's case (AIR 1997 SC 3127), judicial review is concerned only with the manner in which the decision is taken and the principles to be borne in mind are that the modem trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action, that the court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made and that the court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision and if a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. Going by the aforesaid principles, in the present case, in view of what 1 have stated earlier in this judgment, it can be seen that the Government did not adhere to the procedure as well as the norms and guidelines fixed in the seven Government" Orders and consequently the decision is vitiated. The Division Bench of this Court had clearly directed the Government to consider all the applications in the light of the seven Government Orders and the further directions issued in the said judgment. The Government has taken the view that many of the procedures provid