A school manager's right to close a school under the Kerala Education Act, 1958 prevails over any conflicting provisions in later rules unless expressly prohibited.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the Manager of Kshemodayam L.P. School, Kaipamangalam in Thrissur District, seeking to quash Ext.P3 order dated 09.04.2015 passed by the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram, i.e., the 2nd respondent herein, declining closure of the school sought for by the petitioner, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Basic material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. On 20.05.2013, petitioner submitted a representation before the State Government as well as the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram, requesting to transfer the teachers and students to another school or to purchase the school by giving adequate market value. Since the respondents did not take any effective action on the request of the petitioner, he filed W.P.(C) No.12729 of 2014 before this Court, and as per the judgment dated 21.10.2014, the 2nd respondent was directed to consider and pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Thereupon, the judgment as well as the representation was forwarded on 05.11.2014, which were received by the 2nd respondent on 11.12.2014, but no orders were passed. Consequent to which, C.C.C No.569 of 2015 was filed. However, during the pendency of the contempt case, Ext.P3 order was passed, declining the request for closure of the school. These are the basic background facts available for consideration of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner.

3. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. The application submitted by the petitioner is admitted. According to the 2nd respondent, while examining the rule provisions, it is found that the Government of Kerala has issued the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Rules, 2011 in accordance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act , 2009 (for brevity, 'the Act, 2009'). In accordance with Rule 6(10) of the said Rules, the Government or local authority shall ensure that access of children to the school is not hindered on account of social, cultural factors, on account of closure of a Government or aided school and that no such school is closed down without the recommendation of the Assistant Educational Officer and the Local Authority and prior sanction of the Government.

4. The Act, 2009 came into force on 01.04.2010 and the State Rules were framed effective from 30.04.2011, and since the application submitted by the petitioner is dated 20.05.2013, the provisions of the Act and the State Rules are applicable in the matter. So also, as per Sec.6 of Act, 2009, a duty is cast upon the Government as well as the local authority to establish schools, within such area or limits of neighbourhood, as may be prescribed, a school, where it is not so established, within a period of three years from the commencement of the Act. Therefore, according to the 2nd respondent, the State Government and the local authority is under an obligation to establish schools in the neighbourhood.

5. It is also submitted that, the reasons assigned by the petitioner that he is aged and he is unable to run the Educational Institution due to ill- health is not a ground for permitting the petitioner to close down the school. It is further submitted that, petitioner can change the management or ownership of the school, and further that the management of an aided school can be carried on by the manager or a person appointed by him and approved by the Director.

Therefore, the reasons stated in the application to close down the school cannot be sustained under law. Other contentions are also raised to justify the stand adopted in Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent.

6. The 1st respondent has also filed a statement in similar lines with the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the