The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. was considering a writ appeal filed by the manager of a nearby boys' school and one K.A. Muhammed Ashraf (1^st appellant), who had previously filed another plea (W.P.(C) No. 13677 of 2026) challenging the co-education plan.

It directed the Single Bench to freshly consider the writ petition filed by the manager of the girls' school. It was made clear that the appellants and the teachers of the nearby boys' school, who had impleaded themselves in the appeal, can move to implead themselves in the writ petition.

The Court, after noting that certain boy students were already admitted in the school, ordered status quo to be followed till the Single Bench decides the writ petition:

“28 boy students were admitted from 5th standard to 10th standard and they are studying in the school of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner. To safeguard their interest, who were admitted to the school without knowing the dispute existing between the parties, we are of the view that the status quo as of now has to be continued in the 1st respondent-writ petitioner School till a decision has been taken in the writ petition on merits.”

The writ petition was filed before the Single Bench was filed by Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School, Erattupetta challenging a government circular that insists on local body approval for introducing co-education in single-gender schools. It was contended that Clause (4) in the impugned circular that mandates the approval is arbitrary and unenforceable since the same is not statutorily backed by the Municipality Act or the Kerala Education Rules (KER).

The school had earlier preferred another writ petition (WP(C) No. 10617/2026) and it was disposed of with a direction to the Municipality's Secretary to consider the school's application and pass orders. However, since the direction was not complied with, the petitioner school had approached the Single Bench challenging the circular.

The Single Bench went on to direct the Secretary of Erattupetta Municipality to grant approval for introducing co-education scheme in a girls-only school within 3 days of its judgment. It further clarified that in case the Secretary fails to grant approval within 3 days, the school management can proceed with the conversion even without the Municipality's approval.

Aggrieved, the present appeal was filed before the Division Bench, which allowed the leave petition preferred by the Managers of neighbouring schools to appeal. Later on, the teachers of the nearby schools also got themselves impleaded in the appeal.

The appellants contended that the writ petition was barred since the school manager had already preferred another writ petition wherein an order was passed to the Municipality to consider the approval as per the circular. It was also pointed out that the requirements as per Rule 12 of Chapter VI KER were not satisfied.

The additionally impleaded teachers argued that they were necessary parties in the writ petition since they are affected by fall of division when students from their schools transfer to the girls' school.

The government pleader submitted that the Director of General Education had already issued order sanctioning co-education in the girls' school after the Single Bench decision. The Municipality's standing counsel submitted that the No Objection Certificate was issued to the school as per the direction of the Single Bench.

The writ petitioner contended that the prayers in the earlier plea and the present plea were entirely different and therefore, there is no bar by constructive res judicata.

The Division Bench perused Rule 12 of Chapter VI of KER and observed:

“A reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that there are certain aspects to be considered by the Director of General Education while issuing permission for beginning co- education. All these matters have to be considered on merits in view of the contentions raised by the 1st appellant in the writ petition filed by him. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment…is liable to be set aside for reconsideration on merits.”

In the judgment, the Division Bench also noted that the circular mandating for local body approval is not contemplated in the KER or the Municipality Act or Rules and observed that it does not have any statutory force:

“In fact, the approval of the Municipality is not a statutory requirement as per the KER or Kerala Municipality Act and Rules. So insistence on such an approval is not a mandatory requirement. The only provision to introduce co-education is provided under Rule 12 of Chapter VI of the KER, which confers power exclusively with the Director of Education. So, Ext.P3 circular has no statutory force.”

The Court, thus, disposed of the appeal remanding the case back to the Single Bench.

Counsel for the appellants: K.A. Manzoor Ali, Dr. George Abraham

Counsel for the respondents: George Poonthottam (Sr.), Nisha George, A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, Sunil V. Mohammed – Standing Counsel – Erattupetta Municipality, M. Ajay, Reeha Khader K. – Senior Government Pleader