IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the manager's right to close aided schools under Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act without government permission, despite the RTE Act's provisions.

JUDGMENT :

The issues involved in both these writ petitions pertain to the right of the Manager of the aided school to close down the school. In WP(C)No.23704/2015, the petitioner therein, who is the Manager of two aided schools, is challenging the orders passed by the Government and the Educational authorities, declining the permission to close down her schools. The permission was declined by mainly placing reliance upon the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTE Act').

2. In WP(C) No.7407/2012, the petitioners are the Presidents of the Parent Teachers Association of the schools of the petitioner in WP(C) No.23704/2015. In the said Writ Petition, they are challenging the constitutional validity of Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act, in the light of the introduction of Art.21A of the Constitution of India, which made the right to education as a fundamental right as far as the children belonging to the age group of 6 to 14 years are concerned. (The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their respective ranks in WP(C) No.23704/2015, and the Exhibits are also referred to in the sequence as mentioned in the said writ petition)

3. The basic facts that are necessary to consider in the aforesaid questions are as follows:

The petitioner in WP(C)No.23704/2015 is the manager of two aided schools, viz. Aided Junior Basic School (AJB School), L.N.Puram, Palakkad and C.M.M. Aided Junior Basic School, Murukani, Palakkad. The aforesaid schools, along with another school named PAAMM U.P. School, Kallepully, were under the management of Smt. Vijayakumari, the mother of the petitioner. In the year 2003, the said Vijayakumari transferred the two schools referred to above to the petitioner and such transfer was affected after obtaining all approvals in this regard by the Educational authorities. According to the petitioner, due to various reasons, including the decrease in the number of students, it is not feasible to conduct the said schools and therefore, Ext.P1 notice was issued by the petitioner on 2.2.2009 to the Educational authorities intimating her intention to close down the said schools with effect from the academic year 2010-2011. The said notice was issued in the light of the statutory stipulations contained in Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act which provides for a notice of one year expiring with 31st May of any year.

4. However, as per Ext.P2, the Additional Director of General Education conveyed to the petitioner that she has to continue the functioning of the school for the time being as they have recommended to the Government to take over the schools and unless a final decision is taken by the Government, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. Exhibit P2 was challenged by the petitioner by filing WP(C)No.13247/2010 before this Court. The Parent Teachers Association have also filed another writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act. The said writ petitions culminated in Ext.P3 judgment, directing the Government to pass appropriate orders. Exhibit P4 is the Government Order passed in compliance with the Ext.P3 judgment wherein, the Government directed the Educational authorities to maintain the status quo regarding the management of the schools till 31.03.2012. The request for closing down the schools was rejected, and it was also informed that the decision regarding the closing down or take over of the schools would be taken after looking at the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, before the next academic year. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing WP(C) No.5210/2012 by highlighting the right of the Manager to close down the school in light of the various decisions rendered by this Court in this regard. The said writ petition was referred to a Full Bench of this Court, and ultimately, it