Supreme Court rules for Kerala in aided schools' upgradation case, stresses statutory compliance and rejects discrimination plea.

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment, ruling in favor of the State of Kerala in a case concerning the upgradation of aided schools. The Court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with statutory rules for upgradation, highlighting the need to follow the prescribed procedure without deviation. The plea of discrimination against respondent schools was deemed unfounded, and the State's decision to reject the upgradation requests based on financial constraints was upheld as neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petitions were dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Upgradation of aided schools.
2. Alleged discrimination against respondent schools.
3. Financial constraints as a ground for rejection.
4. Compliance with statutory rules for upgradation.

Summary:

1. Upgradation of Aided Schools:
The appeal by the State of Kerala challenges the Division Bench's judgment directing the State to upgrade two aided schools, treating them at par with two other schools previously upgraded. The respondent schools' request for upgradation from primary to secondary level was declined by the State due to lack of funds. The Single Judge upheld this decision, citing the mandatory procedure in Chapter V of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, which was not challenged for validity.

2. Alleged Discrimination Against Respondent Schools:
The Division Bench accepted the plea of discrimination, directing the State to upgrade the respondent schools similarly to the two other schools. However, the Supreme Court found this plea untenable, emphasizing that the decision for upgradation must follow the comprehensive procedure laid down in the Rules, which includes preparing and publishing lists of areas for new schools or upgradation, inviting applications, and considering objections.

3. Financial Constraints as a Ground for Rejection:
The State argued that financial constraints justified the rejection of the upgradation requests. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that upgradation involves significant financial commitment and that the applications for upgradation were not invited as per Rule 2A. The Court found the State's decision neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

4. Compliance with Statutory Rules for Upgradation:
The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of strict compliance with the statutory rules for upgradation. Any deviation or relaxation of these rules without statutory power could lead to discrimination and arbitrariness. The Court emphasized that even executive orders must conform to the Rules, and any departure could be struck down upon judicial review.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment, stating that the respondents' applications for upgradation were not as per the prescribed procedure and that the plea of discrimination was unfounded. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs.

---