|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Saturday, July 28, 2001 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
Southern States
| Previous
| Next
Plus two courses: Single judge's order kept in abeyance
By Our Staff Reporter
KOCHI, JULY 27. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on
Friday directed the State Government to re-examine the cases of
Plus Two schools.
The Bench comprising Mr. Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan and Ms.
Justice A. Lekshmikutty made it clear that the re- examination of
rival claims made by certain managements should be made with
respect to the situation which existed on July 7, 2000.
The judges ordered that the judgment of a single judge directing
the Government to grant Plus Two courses in 20 schools and
consider the cases of 150 schools for Plus Two courses and
quashing its decision to sanction 600-odd additional batches, be
kept in abeyance till November 15, 2001.
The Bench was of the opinion that reconsideration of the entire
Plus Two allotments was unnecessary. The court said the reports
submitted by the district-level committees would be considered by
the Government. All the parties who had approached the court
could put their grievances before the committees and their
objection would be considered on merit.
As for the cases of 600-odd additional batches, the court said a
committee, which would include Director of Higher Secondary
Schools, would be constituted and would consider the objections
of the aggrieved schools. It should submit its report on or
before November 15.
The court passed the order when appeals filed by the Government
against the directives of the single judge and by some school
managements seeking a direction to the State Government to
consider their request for Plus Two schools came up before the
Bench.
The Additional Advocate General and counsel for the petitioners
were unanimous in their view that the State Government had failed
to comply with certain directives given by another Division
Bench. The Additional Advocate General had submitted that the
Government could not comply with certain directives of the Bench
because of the financial crunch.
The Bench had earlier sought the Government's opinion on the
single judge's directives for granting Plus Two courses in
certain schools. In response, the Government had filed an
affidavit stating that it proposed to appoint a committee to look
into the issue and identify areas where the higher secondary
schools were needed. The Government also told the court that they
would examine the single judge's directives and rectify the
illegalities in the sanctioning of Plus Two schools. A decision
in this regard would be taken before December 31, 2001.
The Bench today also directed the Government to follow strictly
the directives issued by another Division Bench which had quashed
the earlier Government Order granting Plus Two schools.
The earlier Bench while setting aside the GO had directed the
Government to consider afresh the entire applications submitted
for sanctioning Plus Two schools for the academic year 2000-01.
The Bench had directed the Government to strictly adhere to the
seven Government Orders containing certain guidelines stipulated
for sanctioning Plus Two schools. It had quashed the earlier
Government order on the ground that the Government did not follow
these guidelines.
The single judge had also pointed out the non-compliance of the
guidelines for the second time while sanctioning 300-odd Plus Two
schools. He had refrained from setting aside the fresh order.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : Southern States Previous : Korean Aptech graduates receive degrees Next : Rs. 230-cr. NCDC aid likely this year | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|