Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. WP(C) No.5209 of 2012 relates to Puthillath Achutha Menon Memorial Upper Primary School, Kallepully, Palakkad and the other writ petition relates to two schools, namely, Aided Junior Basic School, L.N.Puram, Palakkad and C.M.M.Junior Basic School, Murukani, Palakkad. Petitioners in these writ petitions are among members of educational agency. Private respondents in these writ petitions represent parent teacher association.
2. Managers wanted the schools to be closed down. The educational agency instituted writ petitions. The parent teacher association was also before this Court. All those writ petitions, namely, WP(C) Nos.13247, 13248 and 30865 of 2010, were decided by the learned single Judge as per judgment dated 10.08.2011 noticing the requirement for the Government to pass appropriate orders, after hearing necessary parties. Obviously, that was because, there were controversies as to whether the closure is to be accepted. That judgment has become final.
3. The writ petitions in hand are filed seeking directions to take over the records and to hold that the schools stand closed in the eye of law. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the private respondents and the learned Government Pleader, we do not think that such a direction can be issued in these writ petitions for different reasons. Firstly, after the aforenoted judgment was delivered requiring the Government to take a decision after hearing necessary parties, COC No.1370 of 2011 was filed on the plea that the said judgment was not being complied with. The Government, ultimately, issued the impugned Government Order dated 12.12.2011 holding that the decision is to continue status quo regarding the management of the schools for the time being, and that the matter could be reviewed and re-considered, after looking into the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, “Central Act”, for short, before the next academic year. The primary concern in all such matters ought to be the interest of the children, who in terms of the Constitution of India, have the right to free and compulsory education, that token being now governed by the statutory provisions of the aforenoted Central Act.
4. Be that as it may, we may record that, today, by a separate judgment in W.A.Nos.601 of 2011, 653 of 2011 and 53 of 2012, we have held that there is no reason to take a different view from what was laid down earlier by this Court to the effect that all what is required is a notice under Section 7(6) of the Kerala Education Act, “Act”, for short, and no permission is actually enjoined to be obtained. We have also noticed that this Court had consistently taken the view that merely because the manager proposes to close down a school and issues notice, that fact situation cannot be treated as one generating a case of neglect or negligence to initiate action under Section 14 of the Act.
5. In view of the position of law as noted above, the Government has now to re-consider the whole issue, since even going by the impugned Government Order, the matter was eligible to be re- considered, with passage of time. Obviously, it needs to be noted that the writ petitioners have a case that their notices for closure were issued before the commencement of the Central Act, and hence, such notices and their legal consequences would not depend upon the provisions of the Central Act. We record the submission and leave that also, for the time being, for consideration of the Government. The private respondents also have the contention that there is no statutory notice even in terms of Section 7(6) of the Act read with Rule 24(1) of Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules. This submission is recorded, so that the Government can consider that aspect as well.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are quashed and the Government is directed to re-consider the matter, de novo. Let this be done within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg