SECRETARY, CANNANORE DISTRICT MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 6 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 07-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI, A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 6 S.C.R. 556 
A 
SECRETARY. CANNANORE DISTRICT MUSLIM 
8 
EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4346 of 2010) 
MAY 7, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Education/Educational institutions: Minority institution -
c Government decided to grant permission to run High School 
and Higher Secondary School to the appellant, a minority 
institution - Change in government policy - Decision for 
sanction of Higher Secondary School not implemented - Writ 
of mandamus seeking direction to government to sanction 
D Higher Secondary School - Held. Maintainable - Appellant 
has right to get permission to hold Higher Secondary School 
as government committed itself to give the appellant the said 
sanction -
Ke re/a Education Rules, 1959 -
r. 2(2) -
G.O.(P)No.107107/G.Edn dated 13.6.2007 - Administrative 
E /aw - Legitimate expectation. 
Appellant minority institution established a college 
for imparting degree courses with some pre-degree 
courses in various streams. Respondent-State 
Government took a policy decision to abolish the Pre-
F degree 
Courses 
conducted 
in 
the 
colleges. 
Subsequently, the respondents decided that those 
colleges which were running classes up to High School 
may be allowed to add classes up to the 12th standard 
in place of pre-degree courses. Those colleges which did 
G not have any classes till the High school level were to be 
allowed to run High Schools and were also to be allowed 
Higher Secondary courses. By notification dated 
2.04.1997, applications were invited from the management 
of schools, both government as well as private, and from 
H 
556 
SECRETARY, CANNANORE DISTRICT MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL 
557 
ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF KERALA 
colleges for the academic year 1997 -1998. Appellant had 
A 
been applying for Higher Secondary courses ever since 
1996. However, its applications were not considered by 
the respondents in the light of policy that the Government 
livas allowing only those applicants who already had 
existing High Schools. Since many of the managements 
B 
did not have High Schools to start higher secondary 
courses, the Government issued a preliminary 
notification on 25.06.1998 for starting High Schools at a 
certain number of designated places as per Chapter V 
Rule(2) Sub-rule(2) of the Kerela Education Rules, 1959. c 
The ward to which the Appellant belonged was also 
included in the earlier notification dated 13.06.2000 but it 
was excluded subsequently as the Government received 
some objections. A petition was filed by the Government 
wherein the High Court directed the respondent to 
0 
consider the case of the appellant. Pursuant to this 
direction, appellant was given an assurance that it would 
be given the High School as and when the financial 
position of the Government would improve. 
Then by an order dated 31.05.2003, ten schools were 
E 
given the sanction to open aided High Schools but the 
appellant was denied the same facility. After repeated 
representations before the respondents, the appellant 
was sanctioned a High School and a Higher Secondary 
School in its ward after a decision to that effect was taken 
F 
in a meeting of the Council of Ministers on 08.10.2003. 
But the said decision for sanction of Higher Secondary 
classes was not implemented in the light of the decision 
. of the High Court in a writ petition. 
Subsequently, in partial implementation of the order 
of 08.10.2003, it started a High School from 9.8.2004 and 
the classes commenced during the academic year 2004-
G 
05 and the School became a complete High School 
during the academic year 2006-07. But appellant was not 
H 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 6 S.C.R. 
A sanctioned Higher Secondary Courses inspite of several 
representations. Appellant approached High Court for 
issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents for 
sanctioning an aided Higher Secondary school as it was 
done in the case of other aided college managements. It 
. B was alleged that other managements were granted High 
Schools and Higher Secondary Schools simultaneously 
or immediately, one after the other. It also prayed for 
implementation of the order of 08.10.2003 by which the 
Government had already granted Higher Secondary 
c courses to the appellant. 
The question before the High Court was whether the 
Higher Secondary school was to be sanctioned to the 
appellant as per the old policy and the subsequent 
orders or in view of the new policy as per th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.