Dismissed

G.Panchavarnam, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Jun 2016WA(MD)/908/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal against a judgment dismissing a petition concerning a child forced to transfer schools until 100% results were achieved. The Court held that compensation claims are civil matters and disposed of the appeal without admitting it.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; no admission of appeal; Writ Petition below remains dismissed; Civil suit is the appropriate remedy for compensation.

G.Panchavarnam, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.06.2016

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶8

Writ Appeal (MD) No.908 of 2016

¶9

G.Panchavarnam

¶10

... Appellant/Petitioner

¶11

-Vs-.

¶12

1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶13

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

3.The Headmaster,

¶15

Government Hr. Sec. School, Ammapatti – 626 138, Sriviliputhur (TK), Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶16

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to call for the records connected to the impugned order in W.P.(MD) No.6946 of 2016 dated 11.04.2016 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and set aside the same and allow the Writ Petition.

¶17

Prayer in WP(MD). 6946/ 2016 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay adequate amount of compensation to petitioners son namely G. Kannan, now studying S.S.L.C. at Respondent No.3 forcefully issued transfer certificate to petitioners son and not allowed him for attend https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ classes for one month and psychological harassment faced by her son.

¶18

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J )

¶22

This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment rendered on 11^th April, 2016, by a Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.6946 of 2016, dismissing the said Writ Petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to institute a Civil Suit before appropriate Court seeking compensation for the damage said to have been suffered by the son of the petitioner.

¶23

2.The facts lie in a very narrow compass. It appears that the son of the petitioner was admitted to S.S.L.C. Course during the academic session 2015-2016, in the Government Higher Secondary School, Ammapatti, Srivilliputhur Taluk of Virudhunagar District. It is the case of the petitioner that the Headmaster of the said school more with a view to ensure that all the students of his school would be declared to have passed the S.S.L.C. examination and sensing that the writ petitioner's ward, being weak in academics, may not clear the said examination and consequently the prospects of the school securing 100% results in the S.S.L.C. Examination, would get impeded, forcibly issued a Transfer Certificate for the purpose of enabling the petitioner's ward/student to pursue the academics from some other school of his choice. It is the claim of the petitioner that this forcible issuance of Transfer Certificate has caused certain anxiety and agony to the ward and however, the student was re-admitted to the same school some time in the second week of February, 2016.

¶24

3.As we have already noticed supra, the learned Single Judge reserved liberty to the petitioner / appellant to seek appropriate compensation for the damage said to have been suffered by his ward, by approaching the Civil Court. In principle and on the strength of precedents, we are in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge. A Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not ideally suited for determining the factual controversies and on that basis, working out the compensation, which could be paid to mitigate the damage suffered. Such questions require collection of evidence, both oral and documentary. It is only after proper analysis of such evidence, a finding of fact can be recorded one way or other. This apart, it is not mere facing the hardships alone of the matters, but what https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ matters is that it has resulted in visiting the individual concerned about damages. Therefore, approaching the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction is the ideal measure that should have

¶25

¶26

been adopted.

¶27

4.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant

¶28

would strenuously urge that this practice of the Government schools issuing Transfer Certificates, particularly towards the end of academic session and thus forcing certain students out of the schools on the ground of not securing 100% result, is causing any amount of hardship to those particularly hailing from rural sector and in particular, belonging to economically distressed communities. We certainly share the concern of the writ petitioner/appellant. The State Government, we are confident, will take appropriate measures by instructing the schools to desist from adopting any such measures if some of the students are found to be weak in their academics, and the schools run by the Government, are required to put in place corrective measures so as to identify the areas where the students require improvement and then address the problem in a meaningful manner. Issuing Transfer Certificates to such of those students who are found to be weak in academics, is no solution. The aim of every school, however laudable, might be to secure 100% result; but, the same should be to ensure that all students acquire necessary degree of skill and knowledge and the same cannot be measured with the results published. Therefore, we are confident that this specific abilities and special skills, which are areas of interest of young and otherwise talented students, would be appropriately tapped, and the same be harnessed. With this hope, we dispose of the Writ Appeal, after hearing the learned Special Government Pleader. Since we did not find any merits in this Writ Appeal, we have not considered it appropriate to admit the same. No costs.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶31

/True Copy/

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

1.The Principal Secretary,

¶35

Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶36

2.The Chief Educational Officer,

¶37

Office of the Chief Educational Officer,Virudhunagar District. 3.The Headmaster,Government Hr. Sec. School, Ammapatti – 626 138, Sriviliputhur (TK), Virudhunagar District.

¶38

Srm

¶39

CSL/PEK/SAR-II/15.06.2016 :3p/4c

¶40

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

¶41

Writ Appeal (MD) No.908 of 2016 06.06.2016

G.Panchavarnam, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Panchavarnam, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.M.Abdul Kader, Vs P.Ganesan

M.Nepoleon Vs the Sub-Registrar

Saratha Vs the Special Officer

V.Vellaisamy, Vs Kasi,S/O.Arunachala Chettiar

The Chairman, Vs S.Ponkumar

M.Thiagarajan Vs the Commissioner