TRIBAL MISSION Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramachandran Nair, J.-The appellant is a charitable institution running a self-financed school at Attappady which is a tribal area in Palakkad District. Sixty per cent of the students in the appellant's school are children of tribals and members of the Scheduled Caste Community. The school is an English medium school with Hostel providing free food and accommodation to the students. The school was started in the year 2001 and in the year 2003 appellant applied for recognition of the school as a self-financed school in the unaided sector vide Ext.P-1 application. Based on appellant's application the Asst. Educational Officer, Mannarkkad prepared Ext.P-2 report and submitted the same to the Deputy Director of Education who made Ext.P-3 and forwarded the same to the Secretary to Government, who in turn, referred it to the Director of Public Instruction, the head of the Department. The Director of Public Instruction vide Ext.P-4 dated 30-12-2003 recommended to the Government for grant of recognition to the appellant's school as a self-financed school in the unaided sector. However, the Government did not take any action in the matter, and thereafter, the appellant approached this Court for direction to the Government to consider the matter. This Court issued interim direction to the Government to consider petitioner's application for recognition. It is to be noted that besides the recommendation made by the Director of Public Instruction based on the inspection report by Asst. Educational Officer forwarded by the Deputy Director of Education, the appellant had produced Ext.P-7 resolution passed by the Sholayoor Grama Panchayath and Ext.P-8 resolution passed by the Attappady Block Panchayath requesting the Government to grant approval to the appellant's school. However, in spite of recommendation both by the Educational authorities at all levels and request from the Grama Panchayath and Block Panchayath, Government did not pass any orders. This led to filing of WPC and Ext.P-9 interim order was issued by this Court directing the Government to consider recognition for appellant's school. However, Government vide Ext.P-14 order rejected the claim and therefore the appellant withdrew the Writ Petition that was pending at that time, and filed the present Writ Petition which was heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge along with 36 other Writ Petitions.

(2.) The challenge in all the Writ Petitions was mainly against the policy decision of the Government not to grant recognition for opening up self-financed educational institutions. Even though appellant had made a specific prayer for direction to grant recognition to the appellant's school based on documents produced, the learned Single Judge did not grant it and hence this Writ Appeal is filed. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

(3.) We do not think there is any need to consider the findings and observations of the learned Single Judge pertaining to the policy of the Government that was under challenge in the batch cases. This is because after hearing both sides and after going through the records produced, we felt that appellant has made out a case to interfere with Ext.P-14 order issued by the Government and they are eligible to get recognition for their School in the self-financed (unaided) sector consistent with Government policy. Before proceeding to consider the correctness of Ext.P-14 order, we have to refer to the peculiar features of the appellant's school which are the following: