Disposed

The Correspondent v. The Director of School Education

Madras HC8 Jun 2022WP/2512/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order returning its application for school upgradation as it was addressed to the non‑competent authority. The Court directed the petitioner to re‑present the application to the second respondent within one week and ordered the second respondent to pass final orders on merits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

petitioner to re‑present application to the second respondent within one week; second respondent to pass final orders within six weeks.

The Correspondent Vs The Director of School Education — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.06.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

W.P.No.2512 of 2022

¶6

The Correspondent Kalaimagal Vidhyalaya Nursery & Primary School, Marudhur & Post, Pinnalur (via) – 608 704, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Director of School Education, College Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶10

The Director of Matriculation Schools, College Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶11

The Director of Elementary Education, College Road,Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶12

The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore – 1.

¶13

The District Education Officer, Vadalur, Cuddalore District.

¶14

The Block Education Officer, Bhuvanagiri, Cuddalore District.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records and quash the impugned notice issued by the 6^th respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.387/A1/2021 dated 14.10.2021 and consequently directing the 4^th respondent to pass an order upgrading the recognition to the petitioner from Primary (LKG to V Std.) to

¶17

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

¶18

Elementary (up to VIII std.) within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar For respondents : Mr.B.Vijay, Additional Govt. Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2021 returning the petitioner's application seeking for upgradation of their school from Primary to Elementary on the ground that the 6^th respondent is not the competent authority.

¶22

Heard Mr.D. Baskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶23

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 6^th respondent and in paragraph No.6, therein, it has been stated that the proposal for the upgradation submitted by the petitioner was returned by the 6^th respondent only due to the fact that the petitioner has applied for upgradation of the School as Middle School with English Medium which come under the Code of Matriculation Schools and the powers are vested only with the Director of Matriculation Schools. The Director of Matriculation Schools is the second respondent in this writ petition.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would now submit that the petitioner is prepared to re-present the returned application seeking for upgradation with the second respondent and request this Court for a direction to the second respondent once such a representation is done to pass orders within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶25

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has also not raised any serious objection, if such a direction is issued by this Court.

¶26

No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if a direction is issued to the second respondent to pass final orders, once the application is re-presented by the petitioner with the second respondent within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶27

For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the petitioner to re-present the application, which was returned by the 6^th respondent under the impugned order dated 14.10.2021 with the second respondent, within a period of one week from the date

¶28

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

¶29

of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said application, the second respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner including granting them the right of personal hearing, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶30

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

vsi2

¶36

¶37

The Director of School Education, College Road,Nungambakkam,

¶38

Chennai – 600 034.

¶39

The Director of Matriculation Schools,

¶40

College Road,Nungambakkam,

¶41

Chennai – 600 034.

¶42

The Director of Elementary Education,

¶43

College Road,Nungambakkam,

¶44

Chennai – 600 034.

¶45

The Chief Educational Officer,

¶46

Cuddalore – 1.

¶47

The District Education Officer, Vadalur, Cuddalore District.

¶48

The Block Education Officer,

¶49

Bhuvanagiri, Cuddalore District.

¶50

+1cc to Mr.D.Baskar, Advocate, S.R.No.33281

¶51

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 34198

W.P.No.2512 of 2022

NRL[co]

NSK/17/06/2022

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

The Correspondent v. The Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Correspondent v. The Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Nikan Industries Vs The Registrar

V.Krishnan Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Ruby Simon Vs The Tahsildar

M/s.Green Globe Trading Company Vs The Union of India

Devaguru.U Vs The Director

S.Satheesh Kumar Vs The District Collector