The court upheld the procedural requirements for school upgradation as mandated by the KER, affirming the applicants' locus standi.

O R D E R

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The 5^th respondent in W.P.(C)

No.30069/2024 has filed this review petition alleging errors in the judgment dated 09.07.2025 in the writ petition. In the writ petition, respondents 1 and 2 alleged that procedure prescribed in Rules 2 and 2A in Chapter V of the KER was not followed while granting upgradation to the review petitioner's School.

2. This Court also found that the Rules were not adhered to while granting upgradation for running Class upto 10^th Standard. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Government to take a fresh decision in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rules 2 and 2A of Chapter V of the KER .

3. The review petition has been filed contending that respondents 1 and 2 have no locus standi to file the writ petition and that application for upgradation was submitted by the review petitioner as per Ext.P5 GO dated 22.05.2019. According to the review petitioner, this would constitute errors in the judgment.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 3 to 6.

5. The review petitioner challenged the judgment dated 09.07.2025 in W.P.(C) No.30069/2024, filing W.A. No.1877/2025. When the Division Bench of this Court heard the matter, the review petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ appeal seeking permission to file review petition. The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

6. What has been challenged in the writ petition is the recognition granted to the review petitioner's School. The writ petitioners contended that recognition and upgradation of existing Schools can only be done following the procedure laid down in Rules 2 and 2A of Chapter V of the KER .

7. The writ petitioners are an educational institution and a School. Granting recognition and upgradation to Schools without following the procedure specified under Chapter V of the KER would indeed adversely affect the interest of the writ petitioners. Hence, it cannot be contended that the writ petitioners have no locus standi.

8. The review petitioner would submit that the review petitioner submitted application in response to Ext.P5. Ext.P5 provides guidelines for granting recognition to unrecognised Schools in the State following Kerala syllabus. Issuance of guidelines in the matter will not satisfy the requirements of Rules 2 and 2A of Chapter V KER .

In the circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the review petition. The review petition is hence dismissed.