The court established that government guidelines on NOC must adhere to prior judicial rulings to ensure equitable treatment in the affiliation process.

JUDGMENT

The challenge involved in this case is with regard to the recently introduced norms for granting the 'NOC' by the State Government for affiliation by the CBSE as per G.O.(Ms.) No.202/11/G.Edn. dated

07.10.2011.

2. The sequence of events as borne by the pleadings reveals that, issuance of NOC was a matter of dispute, for quite long. The first set of norms was prescribed in the year 1988, and later, in the year 2007, there was substantial modification whereby some of the schools were granted NOC, mostly in the northern districts. On challenging the same before this Court, it was intercepted and the relevant G.O was set aside, which in turn was taken up in appeal before the Supreme Court, where the matter was pending.

3. While so, the Government came up with a new G.O issued on 10.06.2011, stipulating the relevant norms for issuance of the NOC.

W.P.(C)No.28466/2012 2 This was brought to the notice of the Apex Court, when it was observed that, the matters could be caused to be considered in the light of the norms prescribed, as per the said G.O and accordingly, the cases which were pending before the Apex Court were disposed of, observing that the matters could be considered and finalised, also subject to further guidelines to be issued by the Government.

4. Taking a cue from the above observation, under the guise of issuing further guidelines, the Government issued the impugned G.O dated 07.10.2011, whereby various new clauses came to be incorporated, some of which pertain to the minimum extent of three acres required, (vide clause (iv)), 'Malayalam' to be taught as a compulsory language [vide clause (vi)]; the necessity to have a minimum of 300 students to be counted as per UID scheme [vide clause (xiv)]; the minimum salary to be paid [vide clause (viii)] etc. The said G.O was subjected to challenge by many writ petitioners and a learned judge of this Court granted interim stay in respect of Clause (iv) and (xiv), which in turn was challenged by the State by filing W.A No. 1042/2012. A Division Bench of this Court considered the above W.P.(C)No.28466/2012 3 appeal along with such other connected writ petitions and as per judgment dated 14.09.2012, the Clauses(iv), (vi) and (xiv) were set aside, simultaneously giving some positive direction with regard to the necessity to fix proper salary to the teachers/staff and to effect payment to the extent as stipulated therein, as an interim measure.

5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that, the grievance projected in the writ petition now stands confined to the correctness and sustainability of clause (iv) and (xiv) alone, which have already been intercepted and set aside by the Division Bench. This Court finds that, the petitioner is also entitled to have similar benefit as flowing from the verdict passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1042/2012 and connected cases, and that the application submitted by them is liable to be considered by the Government for the purpose of granting NOC, based on the said verdict.

6. In the above circumstances, the first respondent/State Government is directed to consider the application for NOC submitted by the petitioner on the basis of their credentials, extending the W.P.(C)No.28466/2012 4 benefits flowing from the common judgment dated 14.09.2012 in W.A.No.1042/2012 and connected cases and appropriate orders shall be passed, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE sv.