T V SUBRAMANIA KURUKKAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Bazar U.P. School, Thathamangalam is an aided school, and the petitioner is its manager. The institution was started in the year 1907 by his grandfather. He himself became manager in 1945. By about 1984 the petitioner found that because of old age and financial troubles in the family, he was no longer in a position "to run the school effectively". On 4-5-84, therefore, he gave Ext. P1 notice of his intention to close it down from 1-6-85, as required by S.7(6) of the Kerala Education Act. For a long time there was no response either from the Government or from the Educational authorities, despite reminders. On 30-5-85 the Dy. Director of Education, Palghat requested the petitioner, as per Ext. P5 communication, to "set aside the proceedings of closure action", till permission from the competent authority was received. On the same date, the Director of Public Instruction also passed Ext. P6 order in the following terms :

(2.) Subsequently, however, Government issued Ext. P7 notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause why the management of the school should not be taken over under S.14 of the Act. The notice read :

(3.) From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent-State, and a file made available by the learned Govt. pleader, what seems to have transpired after Ext. P1 notice was this. The Asst. Educational Officer, Chittur enquired into the matter and reported to his superiors that the reasons put forward by the manager for the proposed closure were genuine. But on 25-1-85 the Director wrote to the Government that the closing down of the school would create problems. The neighbouring schools had not enough accommodation to absorb the pupils from the Bazar School; those schools were also not having enough staff. The Chairman of the Chittur Municipal Council had requested the Director to take action for taking over the management of the school. S.14(1) of the Education Act empowered Government to do so, when the manager neglected to perform any of the duties imposed on him; and according to the D.P.I. "the intention of the manager to close down the school is itself a true act of negligence especially when there is no alternative for the education of the children and for providing the staff of the school". He was therefore "strongly"of the view that the management of the school should be taken over with immediate effect. It appears that one Thiruvenkatam, Convener of the "Bazar School Samrakshana Samithi"had also made a representation to the Minister for Education, to take all necessary steps to see that the school was not closed down, particularly because it was catering to the needs of Tamil medium students also. It was in this background that Ext. P.7 notice was drawn up by the Government and issued. The other details furnished in the counter-affidavit regarding the number of pupils and teachers involved, the need to protect their interests, the non-availability of additional accommodation in neighbouring schools etc. are not important because, as will presently be seen, the question for decision is one of law - of the power of the Government and the authorities to act in the manner they have done - and not one relating to the propriety of the manager's action. But the averments in para (9) of the counter are relevant, and they are therefore extracted below :