HARIHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the appellant and the learned government Pleader, who advanced arguments after getting instructions from the government.

(2.) WRIT petitioner in O. P. 18131 of 1994 is the appellant. He applied- for permission to conduct patanasibiram (Instructors training Course) in the Government High School, Pulamanthole. The headmistress of the school granted permission to conduct discussions and classes in the school as per Ext. P2 order dated 8-11-1994. That order was cancelled by the deputy Director of Education, Malappuram by Ext. P3 dated 19-12-1994. According to the petitioner, Deputy Director of Education, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with Ext. P2 order passed by the headmistress of (lie school and that the order Ext. P3 is void in so far as it was issued without notice to the petitioner. Learned single judge came to the conclusion that the deputy Director is not invested with any authority to revoke the order passed by the headmistress and that Ext. P3 order is bad for not giving an opportunity to the. petitioner of being heard in the matter. But the learned judge did not interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Director on the ground that the deputy Director had in his mind that there would be some sort of communal disharmony or any other matters in the matter of granting permission to the petitioner to use the school premises. Consequently, the original petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Deputy Director of Education, the second respondent had any jurisdiction to interfere with the sanction given to the petitioner for holding 'sibiram' in the school.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader placed before us G. O. (MS)68/84/gen. Edn. dated 5-4-1984 and contended that Government have issued directions to the authorities not to accord sanction to anyone to use the school building or its premises for any drill or training which may lead to communal disharmony, ill-will and hatred between members of different religious denominations. The directions contained in the G. O. according to the learned counsel is binding on all departmental authorities including the Headmistress of the school and the Deputy Director of Education. Consequently, itis contended that when the headmistress passed an order in violation of the directions given in the Government order, the Deputy Director can interfere, with the said permission. We are not in a position to agree with this contention.