Dismissed

E.Navin v. The Director of School

Madras HC2 Dec 2016WP/25930/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus requested the court to direct a school to allow them to proceed to Class 12 despite failing the Class 11 examination. The school, citing exam failures and independent re-evaluations, maintained the detention order. The High Court, after reviewing the record, dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for a direction to allow continuation of studies in Class 12 was dismissed. No costs.

E.Navin Vs The Director of School — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.12.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.25930 of 2016

¶6

E.Navin
2. P.Prathuish
3. P.Tamil Jeeva
4. T.Britto Deepak
5. E.Arun
6. B.Rubesh
7. B.Raichel .. Petitioners
- Vs -
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Chennai - 5.
3. The Head Master,
St.Patric Anglo Indian School,
Gandhi Nagar, Adyar,
Chennai – 20. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to allow the petitioners to continue the studies in the 12^th standard of the Higher Secondary Course in the 3^rd respondent school in the Academic Year 2016-2017.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sakthivel For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Spl.G.P. For Respondent 3 : Dr.Xavier Arulraj SC for M/s.A.Arul Mary - - - - - O R D E R

¶9

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to allow them to continue their studies in the 12^th standard of the Higher Secondary Course in the 3^rd respondent school in the Academic Year 2016-2017.

¶10

According to the petitioners they appeared for the 11^th standard common examination in the month of March, 2016 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ thereafter the petitioners' parents were called separately

¶11

along with other similarly placed persons by the 3^rd respondent and advised to get transfer certificate from the school of their wards and join some other school. When the parents questioned, they were told that their wards did not fare well in the 11^th standard annual examination. Therefore, the parents demanded the 3^rd respondent to show the answer papers, but the same was refused. The 3^rd respondent further told them that even in the re-test also their wards performance was not upto the mark. But in the meanwhile, they also collected fees for the 12^th standard. When the parents demanded again to show the re-test papers, the 3^rd respondent refused to provide the same. But the petitioners are confident that they had written well and there was no chance for getting very poor ratings. Therefore, the petitioners' parents demanded that the 3^rd respondent should take into account the entire year performance of the students which is available in the progress report.

¶12

According to the petitioners' they have done well and further they would also contend that as per the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules, the school should have a definite policy of principles for promotion of students and such principles ought to have been framed in consultation with the Staff Council and apply the same impartially. This has been incorporated under Section 30(a) of the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules. They would contend that the 3^rd respondent did not follow the said rules.

¶13

According to the petitioners, detention in the 11^th standard is not permitted as per the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules. According to them, it is not mandatory even to pass in the examination held in the 11^th standard and the same is not taken into account for any evaluation purposes. They would contend that the examination at the end of 11^th standard has been prescribed only because few schools never teach the 11^th standard subjects and therefore in order to make the schools to teach the 11^th standard syllabus, the 1^st respondent has made it mandatory to conduct the examination at the end of 11^th standard. Therefore, they would contend that the result of the 11^th standard examination shall not have any effect on continuing the course or to attend the 12^th standard examination and detaining the students in the 11^th standard is contrary to the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules.

¶14

Therefore, some of the petitioners' sent a representation dated 22.06.2016, to the Hon'ble Chief Minister Special Cell seeking interference in the matter and by their letter dated 22.06.2016, they instructed the 2^nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioners and consequently the second respondent had simply forwarded their representation to the 3^rd respondent, but the 3^rd respondent merely stated to take the TC without assigning any reasons. Hence they have come forward with this writ petition.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on a Judgment of this Court in Gooda Srinivasalu Naidu Vs. The Collector of Chengleput at Kancheepuram reported in 1997 (III) CTC 106 for the proposition that when power is vested with an authority under Statue, that power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners would further refer to G.O.Ms.No.77, School Education Department dated 09.06.2003 and contend that re-examination for XI standard should be conducted. Further he would also contend that as per the communication of the CEO dated 12.04.2016, the schools were instructed not to detain more than 5% of the students in XI standard. In paragraph 3 of the said communication it has been stated as follows:"

¶18

The second respondent the Chief Educational Officer has filed a counter. It is mainly contended that the common examination for all the students studying in XI standard in schools under all managements including the petitioners school, the responsibility of the second respondent is to issue timetable for conduct of examination, appointment of coordinators for verification and declaration of results after duly verifying the valuation process. Therefore, accordingly the second respondent conducted the XI standard annual examination and the third respondent school students also participated in the examination. The third respondent school published the results after getting the approval of the second respondent. Since the petitioners herein did not secure minimum marks they were detained by the third respondent and the second respondent advised those who were detained to appear for the instant examination. The third respondent conducted the instant examination for the benefit of those detained students as per the instructions of the second respondent in Rc.No.478/M6/2016, dated 09.03.2016.

¶19

The second respondent would also contend that there is no provision for seeing the answer papers as the entire examination is conducted under their supervision. It is further contended that the third respondent has never advised the petitioners to take their transfer certificates but only persuaded them to continue in the XI standard as they have not passed in the instant examinations also.

¶20

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

¶21

With regard to the complaint lodged with the CM cell, the first respondent directed the 2^nd respondent to visit the 3^rd respondent school and scrutinize the records to verify the claim of the petitioners. The second respondent along with the Inspector of Anglo Indian Schools visited the 3^rd respondent school and verified all the records. Further the answer scripts of the petitioners were evaluated by another school and even after such evaluation, the petitioners were not in a position to secure eligible marks for a pass. Thus, according to them, the answer scripts were evaluated in a fair and transparent manner by independent evaluators.

¶22

The claim of the petitioners that they have been allowed to pay the fees for XII standard and hence they should be allowed to pursue XII standard is a wrong claim made by the petitioners. According to the 3^rd respondent, normally fees were collected during the commencement of an academic year and accordingly the petitioners have paid the fees for the academic year 2016-17 and the 3^rd respondent has no hesitation to refund the fees paid for the XII standard to the petitioners.

¶23

The averment of the petitioners that paras 4 and 5 of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Educational Rules were not followed, the second respondent would contend that such policies are adopted for lower classes upto VIII standard and the principle of promotion policy are evolved collectively and the same is approved by the 2^nd respondent. According to the second respondent after having given moderation marks, the petitioners were not able to pass the examination.

¶24

It is further submitted that if the prayer of the petitioners are conceded, it would set a wrong precedent and upset the systematic procedure uniformly followed throughout the State. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akilesh Kumar Shukla reported in AIR 1986 SC 1043, they will contend that when the petitioners appeared at the examination without protest and when they found that they would not succeed in the examination, it is not for the Courts to decide or grant relief. Therefore, they would seek dismissal of the writ petition.

¶25

The third respondent has filed a separate detailed counter. Their school is an Anglo Indian School governed by the the Code of Regulation for Anglo Indian Schools. Clause 48 and 49 of the Regulation for Anglo Indian Schools governs promotion. Therefore, the annual promotions will be the responsibility of the Headmaster and he cannot promote anyone except in accordance with law. The automatic promotion as contemplated under Section 16 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is only upto VIII standard. Each year has a separate curriculum and at the end of each https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ academic year, there are examination in all the subjects and

¶26

only after completing XI standard, one can join in XII standard and it is the common practice. In fact, even as per the communication issued by the CEO dated 09.03.2016, the schools were instructed not to detain more than 5% of the students in XI standard for the academic year 2015-2016 as against 15% of permitted detention in the academic year 20142015. Further, after the regular examination results were published, they held instant examination in June itself and even if a student could not able to pass in the first instant exam, second round of instant exam was conducted and in that exam also the petitioners did not pass and therefore they were detained and permitted to repeat the studies in XI standard for the academic year 2016-2017 only in their interest.

¶27

The petitioners have made a complaint to Hon'ble Chief Minister cell stating that the third respondent is trying to send them out from the school. The said complaint was forwarded to the first respondent and on 27.06.2016, the first respondent directed an I.A.S officer to enquire and report within 15 days. Accordingly, the I.A.S. Officer along with the CEO visited the school twice in July, 2016. Apart from their personal verification of all the entries in the registers, they also collected the answer sheets and got them evaluated by another school. Except some marginal difference in awarding marks, none of these petitioners managed to get minimum pass marks, even while being revalued by another school. Therefore, according to the third respondent, the evaluation had been fairly conducted by them, which came to be confirmed by the authorities and subsequently verified by an independent evaluator in another school.

¶28

As regards the contention that petitioners were allowed to pay the tuition fee for XII standard, the third respondent would contend that they paid the tuition fees without the permission from the school, they have done it through the bank outside the school. That part, the petitioners are not attending the school till date. The third respondent would submit that if the petitioners want to continue in the school, they can study in XI standard. As regards the demand for answer sheets, the third respondent would submit that it was instructed by the authorities not to do so as it will create a wrong precedent.

¶29

As regards paras 4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules referred to by the petitioners, they do not refer to the correct position of law, there is no basis for the claim that the promotion in XI standard is mandatory. The claim of the petitioners that the result of the petitioners in XI standard examination has no impact over the promotion to XII standard is untenable. It will create a wrong precedent and upset the systematic procedure uniformly followed throughout the State. Therefore, according to the third respondent, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same should be dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

18. Heard both parties.

¶32

The main contention of the petitioners is that they were directed to get their TC and go out of the school without assigning any reason. The respondents would contend that they have never advised the petitioners to take their TC but only persuaded them to continue in XI standard as they have not passed in the instant examination also.

¶33

For the contention of the petitioners that their performance was not properly assessed by the third respondent school, the respondents have clearly stated that after the regular examination results were published, they held instant examination in June itself and even if a student could not able to pass in the first instant exam, second round of instant exam was conducted and in that exam also the petitioners did not pass and therefore they were detained and permitted to repeat their studies in XI standard for the academic year 2016-2017 only in their interest. But the petitioners made a complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Minister Cell and the said complaint was forwarded to the first respondent and on 27.06.2016, the first respondent directed an I.A.S officer to enquire and file a report within 15 days. Accordingly, the I.A.S. Officer along with the CEO visited the school twice in July, 2016. Apart from their personal verification of all the entries in the registers, they also collected the answer sheets and got them evaluated by another school. Except some marginal difference in awarding marks, none of these petitioners managed to get minimum pass marks, even while being revalued by another school. Therefore, according to the third respondent, the evaluation had been fairly conducted by them, which came to be confirmed by the authorities and subsequently verified by an independent evaluator in another school.

¶34

The petitioners would further contend that they were not permitted to see the answer papers, the third respondent would submit that it was instructed by the authorities not to do so as it will create a wrong precedent. Above all, in this case the answer papers of the petitioners were independently evaluated by independent evaluator in a fair and transparent manner.

¶35

The petitioners would further contend that the 3^rd respondent has not followed the promotion policy of the Government. According to the respondents, there is no basis for the claim that the promotion in XI standard is mandatory. The claim of the petitioners that the result of the petitioners in XI standard examination has no impact over the promotion to XII standard is untenable. It will create a wrong precedent and upset the systematic procedure uniformly followed throughout the State. As per the procedure for the examination in March, 2016 the CEO vide his communication dated 09.03.2016 has instructed all the schools not to detain https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

more than 5% of students in XI standard as against 15% of permitted detention in the academic year 2014-15. Hence, the guidelines on the promotion police have been followed by the 3^rd respondent school.

¶37

In view of all the above, the prayer as sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted and hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶38

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CO)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Chennai - 5.
3.The head Master.
St.Patric Anglo Indian School,
Gandhi Nagar, Adyar,Chennai-20.
+2 cc's to Mr.A.Arul mary,advocate,sr.71631
+1 cc to Mr.R.Prabakaran,advocate,sr.71335
+1 cc to Govt.Pleader,sr.71672.
sk(co)
krd 18/1
W.P.No.25930 of 2016

¶39

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

E.Navin v. The Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Navin v. The Director of School

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

E.Barathidasan Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

M.Babu Narayanan, Vs The District Collector

Chellamuthu Vs The Joint- Commissioner

Mr.C.N.Varadharajan, Vs The District Collector

P.P.Sheela, Job Contractor Vs Chief Divisional Retail Sales

Kanagaraj Vs The Superintendent of Police