JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: (i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P5 order. (ii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the State Government to grant additional batches in the subjects of Science and Commerce as sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P2. (iii) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case” 2. The brief material facts for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: The 1st respondent, ie. the State Government called for application as per Ext.P1 for grant of additional batches in the higher secondary section in the subjects of science, Humanities and Commerce. Accordingly petitioner preferred Ext.P2 application seeking additional batches in the subjects of Science, Commerce and Humanities. The State Government vide Ext.P3 granted additional batch in the subject of Humanities only. Thereupon, Ext.P3 was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.13023/2012, which was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 6.9.2012, setting aside Ext.P3 order and directed the Government to reconsider the matter afresh with notice to the petitioner. The case projected by the petitioner is that, thereafter, petitioner was heard however, Government has passed Ext.P5 order dated 6.12.2012, declining additional batches as sought for by the petitioner. It is challenging Ext.P5, and seeking other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleading and documents on record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the State Government has not taken into account the parameters that are to be looked into for considering an application for granting additional batches. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleading and documents on record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the State Government has not taken into account the parameters that are to be looked into for considering an application for granting additional batches. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 application is submitted by the petitioner in a statutory format whereby the number of High Schools not having Higher Secondary/Vocational Higher Secondary Courses within a radius of 5 km from the applicant school, the number of students in each of these schools who became eligible for Higher Studies in the SSLC Examination of March 2010, social and educational backwardness of the area, remoteness of the area, distance to be travelled to the nearest school, mode of transport available, basic infrastructure facilities and services available in the area, presence of weaker sections of society, such as Scheduled Tribes, Plantation workers, labours, fishermen, etc. are to be specified. It is also clear from that statutory format that percentage of linguistic/religious minority in the panchayat, number of students studying in each class of the applicant school and other details are to be published. According to the petitioner within a radius of 5 km. only 5 schools were there, and the school is situated in the social and educational backward area, consisting of Muslims, SC & ST and very poor labours. It is also pointed out that 75% of the people in that area are belonging to linguistic/religious minority. That apart it was stated in the application that in Class VIII there was 645 students, in Class IX 644 students and Class X 572 students. 5. The sum and substance of the contention put forth by the petitioner is that, none of the statutory requirements, which was liable to be undertaken by the Government for considering an application for additional batches, was not taken into account by the Government. It is also pointed out that, once a policy decision is taken by the Government, it continues for ever, irrespective of the academic or educational year and in that regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment rendered by this Court in Corporate Manager, St.Joseph's High School Vs. It is also pointed out that, once a policy decision is taken by the Government, it continues for ever, irrespective of the academic or educational year and in that regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment rendered by this Court in Corporate Manager, St.Joseph's High School Vs. State of Kerala [Manu/KE/0950/2014 dated 10.07.2014] and specifically invited my attention to paragraph 62 to 70 of the said judgment, which read thus: “62. Even though learned Advocate General stressed the fact that the notification Ext.P1 was issued in the year 2013-2014, we cannot subscribe to the said argument that it is confined to one particular academic year. The policy of the Government to start Plus Two course in various schools is a continuing one and it is not for one academic year alone. Therefore, the justification sought in the counter affidavit that the judgment Ext.P3 was rendered by the Division Bench on 11.4.2014 and by the time the recommendation of the Director of Higher Secondary Education, after completion of the process, reached the Government the said academic year is over, is not an answer. Further, after the decision of the Division Bench, various procedures have been undertaken and the Committee had gone into the consideration of applications and finally they have prepared the list after following various norms, which are not disputed. 63. When a power is exercised on the basis of certain facts which do not exist or when considerations are so irrational, we are of the view that going by the principles discussed in various decisions above, the power of judicial review is not limited. 64. Even though Shri T. T. Muhamood, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that since the admission of students in Higher Secondary Schools is by the process of taking a district as a unit, and hence the decision to sanction additional batches as of now cannot be faulted, that too by relying upon the operative portion of the judgment, Ext.P4 by the Division Bench, the same will not help the stand of the Government. What is directed in Ext.P4 is to proceed with the process of sanctioning new schools in 148 Grama Panchayats along with the sanction of additional batches and starting of Higher Secondary schools in northern districts as specified in Ext.P1 itself. This is clear from paragraph 30 and the operative portion of the judgment. 65. What is directed in Ext.P4 is to proceed with the process of sanctioning new schools in 148 Grama Panchayats along with the sanction of additional batches and starting of Higher Secondary schools in northern districts as specified in Ext.P1 itself. This is clear from paragraph 30 and the operative portion of the judgment. 65. The findings therein are significant and the State cannot withdraw from the obligation to provide facilities to the students within a reasonable distance. Lastly, in paragraph 31, while considering the plea that in certain other districts also, apart from northern districts, there will be deficiency of batches in existing Higher Secondary schools, it was observed thus: “............But, at the same time, by evolving a policy in the nature of Ext.P14 the Government also should not shut their eyes on the requirement of other Government/aided or unaided institutions as the case may be in areas falling outside the ambit of Ext.P14, if there is a genuine requirement for starting Plus Two courses.......” In the operative portion of the judgment also, the said aspect was directed. Learned Advocate General and learned Special Government Pleader relied upon the above direction to justify the sanction of additional batches in southern districts along with the districts in north and to justify the impugned Government Order, Ext.P6 produced in W.P. (C) No.13851/2014. 66. We are of the view that the said portion of the findings in the judgment cannot be segregated from the earlier portion whereby this Court upheld the sanction of Plus Two schools in 148 Grama Panchayats on the basis of real educational need in the locality concerned. What is intended is that after the first step is over (to sanction Plus Two courses as well as sanction of additional batches in northern districts and upgradation of Government/aided High Schools in northern districts), if there is any genuine requirement, the Government can consider sanction of the same. 67. Therefore, the justification sought for issuance of Ext.P6 Government Order on that score will fall to the ground. Further, the implementation of such a direction should necessarily be preceded by assessing ground realities. It is so, since this Court directed that such exercise will be done “if there is a genuine requirement for starting Plus Two course.” Such data have not been assessed or addressed, evidently, as we have already noticed. Therefore, we reject the said contention also. 68. It is so, since this Court directed that such exercise will be done “if there is a genuine requirement for starting Plus Two course.” Such data have not been assessed or addressed, evidently, as we have already noticed. Therefore, we reject the said contention also. 68. The stand taken by the Government is totally contrary to the stand taken before this Court as evident from Ext.P3 counter affidavit filed in the earlier cases. This Court permitted the Government to proceed in tune with the Government Order, Ext.P14 produced therein, and all the exercises have been completed by the Committee of experts. The same cannot be unsettled, that too without any relevant materials coming into picture. The direction by this Court in Ext.P4 (produced in WP..(C) NO.13909/2014) could not have, therefore, been ignored. The said exercise had to be completed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, Shri George Poonthottam, what is provided in Ext.P6 is not a change of policy, since the policy as such is in tact which is to provide Higher Secondary schools in 148 Grama Panchayats and in the State and additional batches in northern districts. The said policy being in tact and the present Government Order is issued to sanction additional batches alone in Government and aided schools, what is drastically changed is the process alone and not the policy, which according to us, is faulty and irrational. If that be so, it cannot be stated that a new policy itself has come into play for the Government to justify the said action. That change of course in the midway cannot also be justified and as we have already held, the plea of financial constraints is also not supported. 69. In paragraph 2 of W.P.(C) NO.13851/2014, it is stated by the petitioner that this year 4,42,678 students have cleared SSLC and only 3,26,780 Plus-one seats are available in the State. It is further stated that even if the seats available in Vocational Higher Secondary Schools, Polytechnic, etc. are added, 77,158 students will not get any chance for higher studies. Besides, about 23000-25000 students from CBSE/ICSE syllabus would switch over to State syllabus for Plus-one admission. Thus, the dearth of seats may go beyond a lakh. The above data have not been denied in the counter affidavit. 70. are added, 77,158 students will not get any chance for higher studies. Besides, about 23000-25000 students from CBSE/ICSE syllabus would switch over to State syllabus for Plus-one admission. Thus, the dearth of seats may go beyond a lakh. The above data have not been denied in the counter affidavit. 70. For all these reasons, we allow the writ petitions and quash the impugned Government Order Ext.P6 produced in W.P.(C) No.13851/2014 dated 24.5.2014 and Notification No.Acd.C.3/21437/HSE/2014 dated 26.5.2014 issued by the Director of Higher Secondary Education (Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.13909/2014). Since the process of admission for the Higher Secondary courses this year is already underway, (we understand that the same has started by 30.6.2014) we issue the following directions: (i) The process of providing Higher Secondary courses in 148 Grama Panchayats will be expedited, so that students will be able to get admission this year. (ii) The process of sanctioning additional batches in northern districts beginning from Ernakulam and upgrading schools as already provided in Ext.P1, will also be taken simultaneously and orders will be issued accordingly. After completing the above process in tune with the directions in Ext.P5 judgment of the Division Bench, if there is genuine requirement for granting additional batches in any other areas, the same can also be considered by the Government, depending upon the educational need.” 6. Relying upon the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench in the afore-quoted judgment, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P5 order passed by the Government suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, illegality and injustice, liable to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that, Ext.P5 order is passed by the State Government taking into account the attendant circumstances prevailing in the locality, which is clearly reflected in Ext.P5 order. 8. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. 9. It is true, in Ext.P5 it is stated that GV HSS Raja Kottakkal is situated within 10 km radius from the petitioners school, and there is surplus 26 seats in plus one course, and therefore, there is no shortage of plus one course in the area in which the petitioner's school situates during the academic year 2012-13 and therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner do not deserve any consideration. It was accordingly that the application was rejected. It was accordingly that the application was rejected. 10. In my considered opinion as is pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Government will have to undertake necessary enquiry in accordance with the requirements of the statutory format prescribed for submitting application, which thus means the requirements so sought for is not expected to remain as an empty formality. Such requirements are sought for by the Government in order to evaluate the ground realities taking into account the information furnished by an applicant. This is to be done with the hopeful intention of identifying the educational need of the residents of the locality and the nearby localities, their financial, social, economic and other adverse circumstances and thus earnestly make an attempt to motivate the students to undertake education, without dropping out halfway through. Moreover the Government has a duty to discharge the obligations in accordance with the query sought for in the application with sincerity and dedication to provide maximum education to the children, especially from the poor social and financial background, which is quintessential for a wholesome approach to the issue. On a reading of Ext.P5, I do not think, Government has undertaken that task before passing Ext.P5 order. So also, it is clear from Ext.P5 order that, the Director of Higher Secondary Education has submitted a detailed report stating that in SSLC examination conducted in March 2012, a total of 507 students have become eligible for Higher studies and out of the same, 180 students alone can be accommodated in VVM HSS Marakkara. It was also reported that the petitioner seeks additional batches in other schools to accommodate the the excess students who passed out the SSLC examination. The Director of Higher Secondary Education has however reported that, no general policy decision is taken during the academic year 2012-13 for the sanction of additional batches of plus one, and no notification was issued inviting application, and it was thereupon that the application from the petitioner dated 13.6.2012 was declined. However, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the issue with the policy decision of the State Government as to whether it confines to one academic year or not was considered by this Court in St.Josephs' High School's case (supra) and held that the policy decision irrespective of the academic year continues. 11. However, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the issue with the policy decision of the State Government as to whether it confines to one academic year or not was considered by this Court in St.Josephs' High School's case (supra) and held that the policy decision irrespective of the academic year continues. 11. In that view of the matter and assimilating other factual situation, I am of the considered view that the application is to be reconsidered by the State Government, taking into account the present fact scenario and also the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, though it deals with only elementary education. This I say because, the State Government cannot shirk its responsibility after compulsory elementary education. The children have to be motivated to pursue their studies further, and facilities for carrying on their further education in a nearby area is a necessary concomitant to achieve that target. So much so, State is also bound to implement in letter and spirit the duties conferred on it under Articles 38, 39 and 41 of the Constitution of India, so as to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities and to ensure that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and to protect them from any kind of exploitation, and secure the right to education. This is a social responsibility to be undertaken by the State without fail. Therefore, every endeavour shall be made to conduct truthful enquiry as to the need for providing education to the children in a nearby school. 12. Therefore, I quash Ext.P5 and there will be a direction to the State Government to reconsider Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the observations contained above, and also taking into account the judgment of the Division Bench in St.Joseph's High School Case (supra), at the earliest and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other stake holders.