BALAKRISHNAN Vs. RAMA SESHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are against the judgment in O. P. No. 8684/87. W. A. No. 284/89 is by the first respondent-State of Kerala in the Original petition and W. A. No. 226/89 is by the additional 3rd respondent. Petitioner in the Original Petition challenged Ext. P9 notification issued by the Government under S. 14 (2) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (Act 6 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read will) sub-rule (5) of R. I in chap. 20 of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules' ).

(2.) A learned single judge of this Court, after considering the points raised by the petitioner against Ext. P9, quashed Ext. P9 and allowed the Original Petition. The Slate/ first respondent has filed W. A. No. 284/s9 and the additional 3rd respondent has filed W. A. No. 226/89. In these circumstances, we think that it is only appropriate to dispose of these two writ appeals by a common judgment.

(3.) IT has to be noted that the above decision has been followed in 1986 KLT 359 (Siibmtnanian v. State of Kerala & others ). Another learned single judge of this Court observed that the provision of S. 7 and of R. 24 (1) of chapter V do not speak of any "permission" from any one. The only obligation of the manager is to give one year's notice of his intention to close down, so that if the authorities are so minded, they can make other arrangements for the staff and the pupils. Further it was held that "for the simple reason that it is inconvenient for the State, the D. P. I. or the others to absorb the students and staff elsewhere, they cannot decree, without authority of law, that someone else like the manager should carry the burden for ever". The court also observed that: "if the establishment and administration of an aided school have anything to do with Art. 19 (1) (g) of the constitution, the manager of such a school should also have the freedom to close its down, subject of course to such reasonable restrictions as are permissible under Art. 19 (6)". The same view was taken in an unreported judgment in O. P. No. 8552/85 which was affirmed in W. A. No. 512/88. In w. A. No. 512/88, a Division Bench of this Court, speaking through Chief Justice Malimath, observed that. The provisions of S. 7 (6) of the Act would enable the management to close down the school after complying with the obligations contained in s. 7 (6) of the Act. The judgment begins with a surprise in these words: "we are surprised at the action of the authorities to compel an aided educational institution to function even though according to the rules it has given one year's notice of ceasing to function as an aided school". W. A. No. 512/ 88 was also against the judgment in O. P. No. 8552 of 1985 rendered by Justice paripoornan.