Allowed

Punjab Association v. Director of Matriculation

Madras HC20 Sept 2022WP/20325/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Writ Petition challenging a government circular that restricted matriculation school admissions to the academic year start. The High Court held the circular violated the Natural Justice principles as it barred early admissions without proof that such actions deprived underprivileged students of the Right to Education Act quota.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, and the circular issued by the Director of Matriculation Schools dated 21.12.2012 is set aside.

Punjab Association Vs Director of Matriculation — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.20325 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

W.P.No.20325 of 2018 and

¶7

W.M.P.No. 23879 of 2018

¶8

Punjab Association Represented by its General Secretary, Mr.Ramesh Lamba New No.97, Old No:46, V.M.Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 600014.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Director of Matriculation Schools, Directorate of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶12

..Respondent

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in its proceedings dated 20.12.2012 in reference Na.Ka.No.3762/A1/12, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from fixing any time limit for matriculation schools to admit students.

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.20325 of 2018

¶17

For Petitioner : Ms.Sneha Parthasarathy for Mr.A.Jenasenan For Respondents : Ms.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the circular issued by the

¶20

Director of Matriculation Schools dated 21.12.2012, requiring the Matriculation Schools not to admit students during December of the previous year for the adamic year, commencing from June.

¶21

2.The petitioner, which is a Matriculation School challenges the said circular on the ground that it is beyond the powers of the Director of Matriculation Schools to restrict the period during which admissions could be made for the next academic year. According to the petitioner, it will be highly prejudiced if such a restriction is put in place, since schools operating under the Central Board of Secondary Education commence their admissions even in the December of the previous year and complete their admissions.

¶22

2/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.20325 of 2018

¶25

3.It is averred that if the petitioners' schools are not allowed to

¶26

admit students during December, the students will go to CBSE schools, which open admisssions in December and students strength will not be achived thereby creating a financial strain on the schools. It is also pointed out that as against the student teacher ratio of the CBSE, which is fixed at 45:1, the Directorate of Tamilnadu Matriculation schools have fixed the students teacher ratio at 30:1. Therefore, the matriculation schools are required to employ more number of teachers, than the CBSE schools, to teach the same number of stuents. Number of sections per class are also restricted to 5 whereas such restriction is not available in the CBSE Rules. These deviations have already put the petitioner under severe financial strain. The further restriction put in place by the circular would further deepen the financial crisis.

¶27

4.Contending contra, Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that Section 15 of the Right to Education Act provides that admission should be made only at the commencement of the academic year and therefore, the admissions should be made by the matriculation schools only during May, June of every year, since the 3/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.20325 of 2018

¶30

academic year commenced only in June. She would also add that by making admissions even during December, the petitioner is denying the student, who would have a right to admission under the Right to Education Act for whom 25% of the seats are reserved.

¶31

5.I am unable to accept the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader. Section 15 only suggests that admissions could be made at the commencement of the academic year. It does not bar admissions prior in point of time. It is common knowledge that there are some schools in the city and elshwere which make admissions even when the child is in the womb. Such is the competition for school admissions today. That being the case the circular issued, in my opinion, is based on a

¶32

wrong interpretation of Section 15.

¶33

6.No doubt, Section 15 states that admissions could be made at the commencement of the accademic year. It does not restrict the period of admission. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner's schools have either overfilled their quota thereby, denying the admissions to the students who come under the Right to Education Act.

¶34

4/6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.20325 of 2018

¶37

7.I do not see any irregularity in admissions being made in advance. If it is the case of the respondents that by making admissions in advance, the schools are denying the under previleged students, who have a right to admission under the Right to Education Act then one can understand the object behind the directions issued by the Director of Matriculation Schools. It is not the case of the department that the petitioner schools have refused admissions to under previlged children, who seek under the quota provided under the Act.

¶38

8.In the absence of such rejection of students, I do not think, mere making admissions earlier in point of time would be in violation of Section 15. I am therefore, unable to sustain the circular issued. This Writ Petition is allowed, the circular is set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner schools shall accommodate the students who apply under the Right to Education Act, if they applied within the time prescribed under the Act. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

20.09.2022

¶40

kkn Index:No Internet:Yes Speaking

¶41

5/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.20325 of 2018

¶44

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶45

KKN

¶46

To:-

¶47

Director of Matriculation Schools, Directorate of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶48

W.P.No.20325 of 2018 and W.M.P.No. 23879 of 2018

¶49

20.09.2022

¶50

6/6

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Punjab Association v. Director of Matriculation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab Association v. Director of Matriculation

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

Wellington Gymkhana Club Vs Central Information Commission

S.Purushothaman Vs The Inspector General of

C.Muthusamy Vs The District Collector

S.Balamurugan, Vs The Chairman,Tangedco

R.Veloo, Vs The Secretary to Government

N.Manivanna Perumal Vs The Assistant General Manager