Point of law - Recognition of school - Where Government are satisfied that operation of any rule under these Rules causes undue hardship in any particular case, Government may dispense with or relax requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as they may consider necessary for dealing with case in a just and equitable manner.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner, the Manager of an Aided Lower Primary School, Arogyamatha Lower Primary School, Thrissur questions the recognition granted to the school of which the 6th respondent is the Manager under the provisions of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KER’). He contends that there are about six schools including the petitioner's within a radius of two kilometers from the 6th respondent school, which remained closed for several years. Violating the provisions of the KER, in particular, Rule 2 and 2-A thereof of Chapter V, recognition has been granted to the 6th respondent school is the sum and substance of their challenge.

2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed WP(C)No.29263 of 2013, which resulted in Ext.P5 judgment, whereby the official respondents were directed to hear the petitioner herein as well before taking a final decision on the question of grant of recognition to the school of which the 6th respondent, is the Manager.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, and the learned counsel for the 6th respondent.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the specific direction in Ext.P5 judgment to hear them, they did not get an opportunity to represent their case as they could not participate in the hearing on 25.05.2015 or on 2.6.2015, as the notice of the second hearing was received by them only on 01.06.2016 and thus they could not attend or put forth their objection in the hearing. Resultantly, Ext.P8 Government Order dated 04.07.2015 was passed, whereby, the complaints raised against the grant of recognition to the 6th respondent were repelled. The petitioner challenges, apart from Ext.P8, Exhibits P3 and Ext.P4 as well, which are the Government Orders stating the guidelines for granting recognition. By Ext.P9 judgment, this Court, referring to the earlier judgment in Manager, LPGS, Veliyam, Kollam v. State of Kerala and Others [2015 (3) KHC 703], which issued various directions to the State Government to ensure compliance by the State Government of its obligations in the matter of opening of new Schools/upgradation of existing Schools as contemplated under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act and Rules, held that the State Government was to consider the matter of upgradation of Schools fully in accordance with the stated policy which has to be in tune with the judgment in Manager, LPGS, Veliyam, Kollam (supra). Thus, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are contrary to the directions in Exhibits P5 and P9 judgments of this Court, provisions of the KER as well as an infraction of the principles of natural justice.

5. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to present their case on 25.05.2015, which he did not avail, and also another opportunity was also granted for hearing on 02.06.2015. On both occasions they were absent. It is also submitted that in spite of their absence, all the contentions which the petitioner took in the writ petition filed earlier, namely, WP(C)No.29263 of 2013 were noticed and each of them addressed. The Government took into consideration the conditions stipulated in Exhibits P3 and P4 and found that the 6th respondent complies with all of them. It is also asserted that there were two physical inspections by the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur, before granting recognition and the said decision was again reiterated as per Ext.R6(a) dated 09.11.2015.

6. The learned Counsel for the 6th respondent apart from reiterating the arguments raised by the learned Government Pleader, raised another argument that deserves to be considered. He cited Manager, Palathingal M.L.P. School, Parappanangadi v. Sethumadhavan P.K. and Others [ 2017 (9) SCC 306] for the proposition that the petitioner despite Ext.P5 judgment need not be heard at all while his school is being upgraded as the ratio of the Supre