Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KUMARI.P.MINI versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KUMARI.P.MINI v. STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 13346 of 2000(L) [2007] RD-KL 10876 (21 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 13346 of 2000(L)

1. KUMARI.P.MINI
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY

For Respondent :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

Dated :21/06/2007

O R D E R

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

O.P.No.13346 OF 2000

Dated this the 21st day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner, an admitted senior of the 7th respondent, was overlooked by the 6th respondent who chose to appoint the 7th respondent as the Headmistress of a Lower Primary School. The question of approval of such appointment of the 7th respondent was considered by the statutory authorities resulting in Exts.P4 and P7, whereby, the Assistant Educational Officer and the Director of Public Instructions held that it is the petitioner who is eligible to be appointed as the Headmistress in preference to the 7th respondent. In doing so, the DPI considered the contentions of the management and the rival teachers on the question whether the institution is a minority institution. He concluded that it is not.

2. Though that order (Ext.P7) is dated 12.4.2000, the petitioner faced an order dated 19.4.2000 (Ext.P8), whereby, the Government approved the appointment of the 7th respondent as OP.13346/00 Page numbers the Headmistress and directed the DEO to take a decision separately on the question of the minority right, as claimed by the institution. Firstly, this was plainly impermissible because if the minority status of the school is not conceded, the 7th respondent cannot be appointed as the Headmistress in preference to the petitioner. Secondly, without deciding that issue, it was inappropriate for the Government to have relegated such issue for consideration of the DEO, when it was the Government which were duty bound to decide any dispute as to minority status. (See the decision reported in Evan's U.P.School v. State of Kerala [2002 (1) KLT 849]). That apart, a perusal of Ext.P8 will show that it was issued on the basis of a petition dated 25.9.1999 filed by the Manager, long before Ext.P7 proceedings, but immediately after Ext.P4 decision by the AEO. It is also ex facie Ext.P8 that neither the petitioner nor any other person entitled to be heard was notified of such proceedings and heard in relation to that.

3. For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P8 cannot stand. The same is accordingly quashed. OP.13346/00 Page numbers

4. Following the above, what remains is the requirement to consider the question whether the education institution represented by the 6th respondent is a minority institution entitled to protection of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. In view of the ratio of the decision of this Court in Evan's U.P.School (supra), it is for the Government to decide such issue. On such a decision being rendered, the dispute on the rival claims between the petitioner and the 6th respondent could also be finally settled by the Government. For such purpose, the Government shall, following this judgment, conduct a hearing with notice to the institution, the petitioner and the 7th respondent and decide finally on the aforesaid issues. Let that be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge kkb. OP.13346/00 Page numbers
=======================

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J

O.P.NO.13346 OF 2000

JUDGMENT

21st JUNE, 2007.
=======================
OP.13346/00 Page numbers

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

O.P.No.13346 OF 2000

Dated this the 25th day of June, 2007

O R D E R Listed to be spoken to at the request of the counsel for the 6th respondent.

2. Spoke.

3. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that on 20.1.2001, the District Educational Officer found that the school is a minority institution; on 26.6.2001, the Director of Public Instructions granted minority status to the school and on 13.10.2001, the Government found that the school is a minority institution. This statement is recorded, however, noticing that no materials are placed on record as of now. Therefore, if materials are placed regarding the above, the same shall also be taken into consideration, as also the binding decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, while the matter is OP.13346/00 Page numbers considered by the Government following the directions contained in the judgment dated 21.6.2007. This order shall be appended to the judgment dated 21.6.2007. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge kkb.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.