Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, the Manager of a Lower Primary School in Kadakkal, Kollam District, filed the present writ petition ventilating the grievance that his request for upgrading the School to Upper Primary School has not been considered by the authorities, though they considered the request of other similarly placed schools, thereby, discriminating against the petitioner.
3. The record reveals that at the earliest point of time, through Exhibit P4 dated 03.06.2002, the claim of the petitioner for upgradation was rejected on the ground that “there is lack of policy decision”. Later, when the petitioner submitted Exhibit P5 representation through proper channel to the first respondent, the second respondent, however, instead of forwarding it, passed orders in Exhibit P6 repeating what has been stated in Exhibit P4.
4. It is further brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that having stated that there is lack of policy decision in response to the application made by the petitioner, the first respondent accorded sanction to upgrade other schools through Exhibits P7 and P8, though those schools are similarly placed in all respects. Under those circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Exhibit P5 representation ought to be considered by the first respondent.
5. The learned Government Pleader having strenuously opposed the claim of the petitioner, placed reliance on State of Kerala v. Prasad (2007 (3) KLT 531), a judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court. The purport of the judgment seems to be that under Rule 2 Chapter V of Kerala Education Rules, there would be no scope to entertain the request of any school for
learned counsel for the petitioner that Exhibit P5 representation be considered.
6. Be that as it may, this Court does not propose to adjudicate the issue on merits. It is not disputed that Exhibit P5 representation filed by the petitioner is pending consideration. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the said application was submitted through proper channel, the second respondent, instead of forwarding it to the first respondent, which is the competent authority, simply reiterated the stand taken in Exhibit P4, thus denying the petitioner an opportunity of placing his grievance before the first respondent.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, without adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P5 representation in accordance with law, duly taking into account the ratio laid down in Prasad's case (supra), after giving an opportunity of being heard in person to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If desired, the petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the first respondent.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv