THE PRINCIPAL Vs. SIMI A.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Appeals arise out of the judgment dated 31/10/2014 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 27162/2014. W.A. No. 1575/2014 is filed by the 7th and 8th respondents in the Writ Petition, who are the Principal and the Manager respectively, of Jawahar English Medium School at Pathirappally in Thiruvananthapuram district. W.A.1580/2014 is filed by the 10th respondent in the Writ Petition, who is the parent of one Aswin studying in the 3rd standard of the said school and W.A. No. 1594/2014 is filed by the 9th respondent in the Writ Petition, who is working as a teacher of that school.

(2.) THE Writ Petition is filed by the 1st respondent in all these Writ Appeals, who is the mother of one Abishek studying in the UKG and one Anusha studying in the 3rd Standard of Jawahar English Medium School at Pathirappally, challenging Ext. P5 Government order dated 15/10/2014 and seeking various reliefs including a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 to 7 herein to ensure that the students in Jawahar English Medium School are admitted to nearby Government and Aided schools immediately, and for other consequential reliefs. By judgment dated 31/10/2014, the learned Single Judge set aside Ext. P5 Government order, thereby restoring Ext. P1 order dated 30/9/2014 and Ext. P4 proceedings dated 14/10/2014 of the Director of Public Instruction, the 4th respondent herein, by which the school was ordered to be closed down with immediate effect, with a further direction to the Principal to make necessary arrangements for admitting the students to the nearby Government and Aided schools. It is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31/10/2014, the appellants are before us in these Writ Appeals.

(3.) THE contentions raised on behalf of the appellants in these Writ Appeals are as follows; The 1st respondent has no locus standi to challenge Ext. P5 order and she is merely a name lender acting on behalf of certain persons having vested interests. The present Writ Petition is the verbatim reproduction of the earlier public interest litigation, which was not entertained by this Court. Moreover, there is no prayer in the present Writ Petition to quash Ext. P5 order. By Ext. R7(c) Certificate of Authority issued by Travancore Institute of Science and Technology, the school is authorised to solicit students and conduct classes up to Senior Secondary Certificate Course/Vocational Courses. None of the students in the school were subjected to any physical or mental harassment and the allegation that on 25/9/2014 the 1st respondent's son was locked up in a kennel in the school premises is untrue and the said story is also part of a conspiracy between certain persons having vested interests. The 4th respondent issued Ext. P1 order to close down the school, absolutely without any authority of law and in violation of the procedure contemplated under Sub -section (3) of Section 18 of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTE Act') and Sub -rules (1) and (2) of Rule 15 of the Kerala Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTE Rules'). Further, private study of pupils in unrecognised schools up to Standard VIII is permissible in terms of the provisions under the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KER') and the special orders issued by Government of Kerala from time to time. There is also no prohibition in giving training to students under Open Basic Education Programme, on the strength of the accreditation given by the National Institute of Open Schooling. Going by Sub -rule (10) of Rule 14 of the RTE Rules an unrecognised school can submit application for recognition at anytime. Moreover, the Government of Kerala vide G.O.(Rt.) No. 4078/14/G.Edn. dated 9/10/2014 granted time up to 31/12/2014 for submitting application for recognition of the schools under the RTE Act. It is based on an appeal filed by the 1st appellant in W.A. No. 1575/2014, the Government by Ext. P5 order stayed the operation of Ext. P1 order of the 4th respondent and the said order is perfectly legal. Section 32 of the Act provides for redressal of grievance of any person relating to right of a child under the RTE Act, by making a written complaint to the local authority. The closure of the school adversely affects the education and future of the students and it is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution and also in violation of the provisions under the RTE Act and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, according to the appellants, the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is legally unsustainable and the learned Single Judge ought to have declined any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 7 also supported the reasoning of the Government in Exhibit P5 order.