P.V.Nathan vs State Of Kerala

Devan Ramachandran, J

The petitioner says that he is the Manager of the “Vaidyanatha Iyer Memorial Higher Secondary Schoolâ€, Pallassana, Palakkad and alleges

that even though a specific recommendation was made by the office of the Director of Higher Secondary Education, through Ext.P5, to sanction

additional Higher Secondary division to the school, it was disregarded when Ext.P6 order was issued by the Government. The petitioner contends that

Ext.P6 order is highly discriminatory because it grants such divisions to all schools recommended in Ext.P5, except to this school. He says that he has,

therefore, preferred Exts.P7 and P8 representations before the first respondent - State of Kerala and prays that the same be directed to be taken up

and disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

I notice that this matter was filed as early as in the year 2014. Ext.P5 recommendation were made by the Director of Higher Secondary Education

as early as on 23.12.2013 and it is indubitable that the petitioner's school has been included therein. However, there are no reasons stated in Ext.P6

order as to why the petitioner's school has been denied the grant of additional division and am, therefore, certainly of the view that the petitioner was

justified in having approached the Government with Exts.P7 and P8 representations. Sadly, these representations appear to have been pending for the

last more than seven years, during the period when this writ petition has also been pending.

I am, therefore, of the firm opinion that imminent orders are to be issued by the Government on Exts.P7 and P8, after affording an opportunity of

being heard to the petitioner also.

In fact, Sri.P.M.Manoj, the learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents, also affirmed that if Exts.P7 and P8 are still

pending, there is no legal impediment in the same being considered in the light of Exts.P5 and P6. He, however, added that the educational needs may

have undergone a complete change in the last more than seven years; and thus prayed that the competent Authority may also be allowed to keep this

in mind while issuing orders.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the competent Authority of the Government to take up Exts.P7 and P8 and dispose

of the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner â€" either physically or through video conferencing â€" thus culminating in

an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

In order to enable consideration of the representations expeditiously, I direct the petitioner to produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with

fresh copies of Exts.P7 and P8, before the competent Authority and the time frame fixed in this judgment will run from the date on which it is so

presented.