Allowed

The Correspondent, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC13 Dec 2011WP(MD)/2473/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench allowed a writ petition filed by a CISCE-affiliated school seeking permission to open 11th and 12th standards under the State Board. The court quashed the rejection order for lacking valid reasons and note discrimination, directing the school authority to grant permission within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.05.2010 set aside; third respondent directed to grant permission for 11th and 12th standards under State Board syllabus within four weeks.

The Correspondent, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.12.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA W.P.(MD).No.2473 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.2 to 4 of 2011

¶3

The Correspondent The Little Kingdom Senior School Vedapuri, Aranmanai Pudur, Theni - 625531

¶4

: Petitioner

¶5

-Vs-

¶6

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George,Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai.600 006. 3.The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary)College Road,Chennai. 4.The Chief Educational Officer,Theni, Theni District. 5.The District Educational Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶7

: Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.102 (School Education (U2) Department) dated 26.07.2001 on the file of the 1^st respondent and the consequent proceeding issued by the third respondent, Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) in O.Mu.No.44461/W/IV/E2/2010 dated 31.05.2010 and his subsequent proceedings in Na.Ka.No.101249/W4/E3/2010 dated 28.10.2010, quash the same and further direct the third respondent Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) to grant forthwith permission to the petitioner for opening the Higher Secondary School (Standards Xi and XII) in English Medium under the State Board from the academic year 2010-2011.

¶9

(prayer amended vide order dated 10.03.2011 in M.P.No.5 of 2011)

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.K.Chellapandian,Addl.Advocate General

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner Institution has come forward with this petition challenging the G.O.Ms.No.102 (School Education (U2) Department) dated 26.07.2001 on the file of the 1^st respondent and the consequent proceeding issued by the third respondent, Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) in O.Mu.No.44461/W/IV/E2/2010 dated 31.05.2010 and his subsequent proceedings in Na.Ka.No.101249/W4/E3/2010 dated 28.10.2010, and to quash the same and for a further direction to the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) to grant forthwith permission to the petitioner Institution for opening the Higher Secondary School (Standards XI and XII) in English Medium under the State

¶14

¶15

Board from the academic year 2010-2011.

¶16

The case of the petitioner School is that the School was established by the Trust known as 'The Little Kingdom Educational Trust'. One of the principle objects of the Trust is establishment of Educational Institutions. The school was established in the year 2005 and the same was affiliated with the CISCE (Council for Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi). The medium of instruction is English. Teachers are appointed in accordance with the minimum qualification prescribed by CISCE. The textbooks, instructional hours, promotional criteria, scholastic evaluation, attitude test, co-curricular activities, etc are all as prescribed by the CISCE. The CISCE would conduct the public examination at the level of standards X and XII and award the certificates. However, the school offers education only up to standard X. The school has sufficient qualified Teachers and other staff members. The Student-Teacher ratio of 15:1 is followed. At present there are 429 students. The school is having its infra structure, namely, playgrounds, recreation places, musical, study center, dance coaching centre, science labs, skating rink and multimedia computer lab, science labs etc. The school is fully selffinanced. There is no financial assistance from the Government.

¶17

2.1. There has been constant pressure from the parents of the students and the local public for the opening of higher secondary Classes (English medium) under the State Board in the school. The Trust, considering their low economic capacity and their resultant inability to send their children to distant places for English Medium education, decided to start higher secondary classes 11 and 12^th offering two groups. One group with Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology and another group with Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Computer. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a proposal to the third respondent on 09.04.2010 seeking for the upgradation of the petitioner school into a higher secondary school in English medium under State Board from the academic year 2010-11. The said proposal was sent through proper channel, i.e, through the fourth respondent, Chief Educational Officer. The fourth respondent also inspected the school premises and having been satisfied with the infra structural and instructional facilities in the school forwarded the application with a request to the third respondent Joint Director, as per his proceeding, dated 06.05.2010.

¶18

2.2. The third respondent thereafter refused to grant permission as per the order, dated 31.05.2010, stating that the petitioner school had been affiliated with the CISCE, New Delhi and hence could not be permitted to start higher secondary classes under State Board, in view of the policy decision of the Government. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition with the above said prayer.

¶19

Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that there is no legal impediment for granting permission to the petitioner School for higher secondary classes in 11^th and 12^th standards in English medium under the State Board from the academic year 2010-11. It is contended that similarly placed Institutions have already been granted permission by the Government to include 11^th and 12^th https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ standards as per the syllabus of State Board and as such, there should not be any discrimination in respect of the petitioner Institution. It is

¶20

¶21

pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no valid reason has been assigned for rejecting the grant of permission to the petitioner Institution to 11^th and 12^th standards under the State Board.

¶22

Per contra, Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the proposal for grant of permission to have 11^th and 12^th standard under the State Board. As of now, the Institution was having only CISCE up to 10^th standard and as such they cannot now seek only for two standards, namely, 11^th and 12^th standards under the State Board. It is pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General that the impugned order was also passed on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 26.07.2001 and as per the said G.O., truncated schools cannot be permitted to have 11^th and 12^th standards as per the State Board syllabus. It is fairly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that after the G.O., only one such Institution was permitted within Madurai District, namely, Idhayam Rajendran Residential School.

¶23

This Court carefully considered the rival submissions of both sides and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned order passed by the third respondent herein dated 31.05.2010.

¶24

At the outset, it is to be stated that except quoting the G.O.No.102, dated 26.07.2001, the impugned order does not contain any valid reason for rejecting the permission sought for by the petitioner Institution for having the higher secondary school by including 11^th and 12^th standards under the State Board syllabus. It is pertinent to note that in respect of similar Institution, namely, Idhayam Rajendran Residential School, permission has been accorded to include 11^th and 12^th standards under the State Board syllabus and the said order was also passed in respect of the school within Madurai District and that too after the issuance of G.O. 102 dated 26.07.2001. Such being the position, there is no legal impediment for the authorities to grant similar permission to the petitioner Institution to include 11^th and 12^th standards under the State Board syllabus, otherwise, it would amount to a clear case of discrimination.

¶25

Accordingly, this Court is constrained to allow the writ petition and the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 31.05.2010 in his proceeding in O.Mu.No.44461/WIV/E2/2010 is hereby set aside. Consequently the third respondent herein is directed to grant permission to the petitioner Institution for having 11^th and 12^th standard under the State Board syllabus from the academic year 2010-11. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶26

SD ASST REGISTRAR(RECORDS)

/TRUE COPY/

SUB ASST REGISTRAR

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

¶32

To 1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai. 3.The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary),College Road, Chennai.600 006. 4.The Chief Educational Officer, Theni, Theni District. 5.The District Educational Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District. 1cc To Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Advocate in SR No.43531. SB:21/12/2011 4P 7C W.P.(MD).No.2473 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.2 to 4 of 2010 13.12.2011

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Correspondent, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Correspondent, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Ajeesh, S/O.Augustin, Vs the Tamil Nadu Uniform Service

R.Angamuthu Vs the Secretary to Government

Mohamed Sha .H Vs the Tahsildar

S.Arputha Mary, Vs the Inspector of Panchayats

V. Ramachandran Vs the Inspector of Police

Pradeepan Vs the Inspector of Police