State Of Kerala vs V.P.Muraleedharan

The writ appeal arises from the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge on I.A.No.1774 of 218 in W.P.(C) No.42128 of 2017. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent herein seeking to impugn Exts.P9, P10 and P12 to P17 and for a declaration that only the Indian Red Cross Society is competent to conduct all activities in relation to Junior Red Cross in the State. Subsequently, I.A.No.1774 of 2018 was filed by the respondent seeking a direction against the appellants to keep in abeyance the conduct of Junior Red Cross C Level Examination. It is in that I.A. Order dated 02.02.2018 was passed directing the appellants to keep in abeyance the examination which was then scheduled to 03.02.2018. On 03.02.2018, the learned Single Judge passed a further order explaining the reasons in support of his order dated 02.02.2018. It is aggrieved by these orders, the appeal is filed.

We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner.

The short issue is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in putting on hold the Junior Red Cross C Level Examination permanently. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that those who qualify in the examination are eligible for grace marks in the SSLC examination and it was therefore that the appellants have taken steps for completing the process of examination before the commencement of SSLC examination. It is stated that about 37,500 students were to appear in the examination. According to the learned Government Pleader, if the examination is not completed expeditiously, the students will lose the benefit of grace marks.

However, the aforesaid contentions were refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner by pointing out that the State has no role to play in the administration of Indian Red Cross Society. According to the learned counsel, this legal position has been accepted by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and the apex Court vide Exts.P2 and P3 respectively. It is stated that attempt of the State is to conduct the examination by a coordinator nominated by it and that the right to nominate the coordinator is entirely that of the Red Cross Society. In other words, what is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner was that the attempt of the State is to encroach into the powers of the Red Cross Society, which has already been disapproved by this Court.

The truth is as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. Having regard to Exts.P1 and P2 judgments of this Court, role of the State in the administration of Indian Red Cross Society is open to doubt. In the previous years, a State Official nominated by the Indian Red Cross Society as coordinator was in-charge of the Junior Red Cross C Level Examination and therefore the Red Cross Society is right in nominating a coordinator this year also.

We agree with the learned Government Pleader that if the examination is inordinately delayed or indefinitely postponed, the victims thereof would be the students who are eligible for grace marks. We cannot allow that situation to continue and therefore, we deem it appropriate that necessary arrangements should be made for the conduct of Junior Red Cross C Level Examination. This is especially because the SSLC examination has already been commenced.

Taking note of all the above, we modify the orders impugned before us and dispose of the appeal with the following directions:

I.The respondent will nominate a coordinator, who is a teacher/officer from the Education Department of the State. The nomination should be communicated to the Director of Public Instructions as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, on or before 09.03.2018.

II. On receipt of the nomination, the Director of Public Instructions shall issue necessary orders enabling the coordinator to conduct the Junior Red Cross C Level Examination as expeditiously as possible.

III. The parties will be at liberty to seek further orders in the writ petition, if such an occasion arises.