Supreme Court Upholds School Upgradation Based on Relaxation of Kerala Education Rules: Palathingal School Case (2017)

Date of the Judgment: September 08, 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 764

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Can a state government bypass established education rules to upgrade a school? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER). The Court examined whether the government could relax the rules to permit the upgradation of a school without adhering to the standard procedures, especially concerning notice to other schools in the vicinity. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta, delivered the judgment, with Justice Deepak Gupta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Palathingal M.L.P. School was initially a junior primary school up to Class IV. On June 16, 2015, the school received an order from the government to upgrade to an upper primary school, adding Classes V to VIII. This decision was challenged by the manager of a nearby school, Sethumadhavan P.K. The challenge was based on the argument that the procedure under the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER) had not been followed, particularly the requirement to notify neighboring schools to allow them to raise objections.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Sethumadhavan P.K., primarily because the procedure prescribed in Rule 2 of Chapter V of KER was not followed. The High Court set aside the government’s order, but permitted students already admitted to continue their education until the next academic year. The court also allowed the government to make a fresh decision after following the correct procedure. The appellant school then filed a Writ Appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Subsequently, the school appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER). Specifically, the following rules were considered:

• ✓ Rule 2 of Chapter V of KER: This rule prescribes the procedure for opening and upgrading schools, which includes notifying nearby schools to allow them to raise objections.
• ✓ Rule 2A of Chapter V of KER: This rule also deals with the prohibition of opening and upgradation of new schools except in terms of the rules.
• ✓ Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER: This rule empowers the government to relax the requirements of any rule if its operation causes undue hardship in a particular case. The rule states:

  “3. Where the Government are satisfied that the operation of any rule under these Rules causes undue hardship in any particular case, the Government may dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as they may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.”

The Supreme Court also noted that the right to education up to the age of 14 years is a fundamental right under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (The Manager Palathingal M.L.P. School):

• ✓ The appellant argued that the High Court overlooked the fact that the Government of Kerala had specifically exercised its powers of relaxation under Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER.
• ✓ The appellant contended that the government order of June 16, 2015, was a detailed order that considered the needs of children in an economically backward area, predominantly from the minority Muslim community.
• ✓ The appellant highlighted that students had to travel 2.5 to 6 kilometers to attend school after Class IV, and the school had 268 students from Class I to IV, justifying the need for the upgrade.
• ✓ The appellant submitted that the government had consciously decided to relax the provisions of Rule 2 and Rule 2A of Chapter V of KER to permit the upgradation.

Respondent’s Arguments (Sethumadhavan P.K.):

• ✓ The respondent argued that the upgradation order could not have been passed without giving an opportunity to the respondent to raise objections.
• ✓ The respondent contended that the procedure prescribed under Rule 2 of Chapter V of KER was mandatory and should have been followed.

Respondent’s Arguments (Parent Teachers Association):

• ✓ The Parent Teachers Association supported the appellant school, arguing that the children should be able to attend the school located in their locality.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Government of Kerala was justified in relaxing the provisions of Rule 2 and Rule 2A of Chapter V of KER by exercising its powers under Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER to upgrade the appellant school to an upper primary school.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• ✓ Rule 2 of Chapter V of KER: Procedure for opening and upgrading schools.
• ✓ Rule 2A of Chapter V of KER: Prohibition of opening and upgradation of new schools except in terms of the rules.
• ✓ Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER: Power of the Government to relax the rules.
• ✓ Article 21A of the Constitution of India: Fundamental right to education up to the age of 14 years.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ Rule 2 of Chapter V of KER: The Court acknowledged the procedural requirements but held that these were validly relaxed by the government.
• ✓ Rule 2A of Chapter V of KER: The Court acknowledged the procedural requirements but held that these were validly relaxed by the government.
• ✓ Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER: The Court relied on this rule to uphold the government’s power to relax rules when undue hardship is caused.
• ✓ Article 21A of the Constitution of India: The Court emphasized the importance of the right to education, highlighting the need to make education accessible, and that children should not have to travel long distances to attend school.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ The fact that the school was located in an economically backward area.
• ✓ The fact that the students belonged to the minority Muslim community.
• ✓ The fact that students had to travel long distances (2.5 to 6 kilometers) to attend school after Class IV.
• ✓ The fact that the government had consciously exercised its power under Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER to relax the rules.
• ✓ The fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.

The Court’s reasoning was that the government had the authority to relax the rules under Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER, especially when the strict application of the rules would cause undue hardship. The Court also emphasized the importance of making education accessible to all children and that children should not have to travel long distances to attend school. The Court also noted that the school was located in an economically backward area and the students belonged to the minority Muslim community.

The Court considered whether the government’s decision to relax the rules was justified. The Court noted that Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER allowed the government to relax any rule if its operation causes undue hardship. The Court noted that the school was located in an economically backward area and the students had to travel long distances to attend school. The Court also noted that the government had consciously decided to relax the rules. The Court held that the government’s decision to relax the rules was justified and set aside the High Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court stated:

“There was no specific challenge to the order of relaxation. Even otherwise, we are clearly of the view that the Government had the authority and jurisdiction to grant such a relaxation in terms of Rule 3 of Chapter 1 of KER…”

“We cannot expect children in the age group of 10 to 14 years to walk 3 kilometres or more to attend school. The right of education up to the age of 14 years is now a fundamental right under article 21A of the Constitution of India and if this right is to be meaningful then efforts must be made to open upper primary schools in such a manner that no child has to walk 3 kilometres or more only to attend school.”

“In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The State Government has the power to relax the requirements of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER) under Rule 3 of Chapter I, if the strict application of the rules causes undue hardship.
• ✓ The right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India is a key consideration, and efforts should be made to ensure that education is accessible to all children, especially those from economically backward areas.
• ✓ Schools in economically backward areas may be given special consideration for upgradation to ensure that children do not have to travel long distances for education.
• ✓ The government’s decision to relax the rules must be based on a conscious decision and should be supported by valid reasons.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court. The Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench as well as of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State Government has the power to relax the rules under Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER, when the strict application of the rules causes undue hardship. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the importance of the right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India and the need to make education accessible to all children, especially those from economically backward areas. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Court has clarified the scope and application of Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision to relax the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER) for the upgradation of the Palathingal M.L.P. School. The Court emphasized that the government has the power to relax rules under Rule 3 of Chapter I of KER when the strict application of the rules causes undue hardship. The Court also highlighted the importance of the right to education and the need to make education accessible to all children, especially those from economically backward areas.