M. SEENATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in all these cases submit that in implementation of the provisions contained in section 19(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) the managements/PTAs have taken steps to equip their Schools to provide elementary education to the pupils of the respective Schools i e. to start class V in their Lower Primary Schools and Class VIII in their Upper Primary Schools. Petitioners claim that there are no neighbourhood Schools within the prescribed distance from their Schools. It is claimed that it is the fundamental right of the children of standard IV of the School to continue in the same School in standard V also. According to them the respondents are bound to permit the pupils studying in class IV in their Schools to pursue their studies in class V in the same School and those studying in class VII in the UP Schools to pursue their studies in class VIII also in the same school, restructuring the LP schools with class V also and the UP Schools with class VIII also. As the three year period provided in the Act is already over, they allege that the respondents are abdicating their duty to impart elementary education to the pupils by restructuring the schools in conformity with the definition of elementary education under Section 2(f) and school under section 2(n)(ii) of the RTE Act by including class V in LP schools and class VIII in UP Schools. It is alleged that Rule 6(2) of the Kerala RTE Rules, 2011 mandates the Government to restructure the Schools with classes I to V and VI to VIII. They allege that since the Government failed to implement the provisions in the Act and rules within the time limit prescribed in the statute and fixed and extended by this Court, they should be allowed to run class V and VIII in the LP schools and UP schools respectively.

(2.) In the judgment dated 18.06.2015 in Manager, LPGS, Veliyam, Kollam v. State of Kerala and Others : 2015 (3)KHC 703, a learned single Judge of this Court considered the very same issue in a batch of writ petitions, where similar directions were sought, raising similar contentions, as evident from Paragraph 1 of the judgment which read as follows:

(3.) Thereafter in the judgment dated 15.12.2015 in Kerala Aided L.P. and U.P. School, Kollam v. State of Kerala and Another: ILR2016(1)Ker 590, another learned Single Judge declined to pass any further orders in the light of the aforesaid judgment, observing the following.