SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Ker) 132

Judges : BALAKRISHNA MENON,JOHN MATHEW
PUNNOSE - Appellant
Versus
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 239 of 1984
Decided On : 06/21/1984
Advocates Appeared :
George Varghese Kannanthanam; P.C Joseph Pazheparambil; Kurian George Kannanthanam; For Appellant P.G.P. Panicker; Addl. Advocate General; For Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited interference by the court in matters of granting privileges by the Government and the role of educational agencies as agents of the Government with certain rights and privileges conferred by the Education Act and the Rules.

Headnote:

Education - Upgradation of School - Kerala Education Act, 1958 - S.3, S.9 - R.2 of Chapter V of the KER - The court found that the preliminary list for opening new schools/upgrading schools did not consider all relevant matters as required by the rules. The Government also lacked material to support crucial matters required to be considered. However, the order on a second look into the matter passed by the Government was found to be unassailable. The responsibility of providing educational facilities in the State is of the Government and it is required to regulate primary and other stages of education and courses of instruction in Government and private schools. The court emphasized that the educational agency is only an agent of the Government with certain rights conceded by the Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder and also certain rights on the minority communities guaranteed under the Constitution to establish educational institutions of its own. The court held that the grant of the privilege to upgrade the existing U.P. School into a High School was not vitiated by mala fides.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was against the judgment quashing the proceedings of the Government and the Education Department for the upgradation of an Upper Primary School into a High School. The court found that the preliminary list for opening new schools/upgrading schools did not consider all relevant matters as required by the rules. The Government also lacked material to support crucial matters required to be considered. However, the order on a second look into the matter passed by the Government was found to be unassailable.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the responsibility of providing educational facilities in the State is of the Government and it is required to regulate primary and other stages of education and courses of instruction in Government and private schools. The court emphasized that the educational agency is only an agent of the Government with certain rights conceded by the Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder and also certain rights on the minority communities guaranteed under the Constitution to establish educational institutions of its own. The court held that the grant of the privilege to upgrade the existing U.P. School into a High School was not vitiated by mala fides.

Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance with the rules for determining the areas where new schools are to be opened or existing schools are to be upgraded, the responsibility of the Government in providing educational facilities, and the rights and privileges of educational agencies in establishing and managing educational institutions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the responsibility of the Government in providing educational facilities and the limited interference by the court in matters of granting privileges by the Government. The court also highlighted the role of educational agencies as agents of the Government with certain rights and privileges conferred by the Education Act and the Rules.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decision of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed. The court found no substantial question of law of general importance that needed to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Judgment :-

1. This appeal is against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in OP. No 8900 of 1983-J quashing the proceedings of the Government and the Education Department for the upgradation of an Upper Primary School under the educational agency of the fourth respondent in the Original Petition into a High School. The learned judge found that the preliminary list in regard to the opening of new schools/ upgradation of schools drawn up by the Director of Public Instruction was without adverting to all the relevant matters in sub-rule (1) of R.2 of Chapter V of the KER., the enquiry under sub-rule (3) was only about the impact of including the area of the Upper Primary School for upgradation on the neighbouring schools and not with respect to the educational needs of the locality and that there was no material before the Director as to the educational need when he finalised the list of places for sanctioning new schools or upgradation of existing schools. According to the learned judge, the Government also had, at the stage of approval under sub-rule (4), no material to support the crucial matters required to be considered under the rules. The learned judge, however, found that the order under sub-rule (5) on a second look into the matter passed by the Government was unassailable. Nevertheless at the earlier stage when the matter had been gone into, there was dearth of material. The grant in favour of the 4th respondent cannot, according to the learned judge, be sustained in law.

2. The responsibility of providing educational facilities in the State is of the Government admits of no doubt. The Preamble to the Kerala Education Act, 1958 states that the Act is passed for the better organisation and development of educational institutions in the State providing a valid and comprehensive educational service throughout the State. As per S.3 of the Act it is the responsibility of the Government to regulate the primary and other stages of education and courses of instruction in Government and private schools, and it is also its responsibility to take such steps from time to time as are considered necessary or expedient for the purpose of providing facilities for genera! education, special education and for training of teachers. It is also the responsibility of the Government under S.9 of the Act to pay the salary of the teachers and non-teaching staff of all aided schools in the State. The Government is also required to pay to the Managers of aided schools a maintenance grant at the prescribed rates and also grants-in -aid for the purchase, improvement and repairs of any land, building or equipment of aided schools in the State. The procedure for determination of the areas where new schools are to be opened or existing schools are to be upgraded is contained in R.2 of Chapter V of the KER. As per sub-rule(1) the Director is required, from time to time, to prepare a list of localities where new schools are to be opened and existing schools are to be upgraded. In preparing the list the Director has to take into consideration the matters enumerated as (a) to (e) in sub-rule (1). These include the existing schools in and around the locality, the strength of the several standards and the accommodation available in each of the existing schools, the distance from each of the existing schools to the area where new schools are to be opened or existing schools are to be upgraded, the educational needs of the locality with reference to the habitation and backwardness of the area, and also any other matter which the Director considers relevant in the matter of choice of the locality for sanctioning new schools or the upgradation of existing schools. Under sub-rule (2) the Director is required to publish the preliminary list prepared by him under sub-rule (I) in the Gazette, inviting objections or representations to be filed before the Assistant Educational Officer or the District Educational Officer as the case may be. Sub-rule (3





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top