Dismissed¶34

The Director (Private Schools) v. Krishnaveni

Madras HC25 Mar 2025/780/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC W.A.No.780 of 2025 dismissed 25.03.2025 (Subramaniam & Rajasekar JJ.): Rule 4 of the State Rules 1-kilometre residence radius vs admission of a willing child; beneficial enactment, no straight jacket formula; State educational authorities' hyper-technical objection rejected; State not aggrieved; Government bears fees; order in W.P.No.17088 of 2024 upheld; appeal under Clause 15 Letters Patent; no costs; CMP No.6701 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; writ appeal dismissed without costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.6701 of 2025) closed. ¶34

The Director (Private Schools) Vs Krishnaveni — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; writ appeal dismissed without costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.6701 of 2025) closed.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether a child residing beyond the 1 kilometre radius from the school prescribed by Rule 4 of the State Rules may nevertheless be admitted, Rule 4 being a beneficial enactment. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Rule 4 of the State Rules prescribes residence within 1 kilometre of the school, but being a beneficial enactment it cannot be applied as a straight jacket formula; where the child is willing to attend the school, it is not open to the Government to say that the child should not be admitted in a particular school.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The school directed to admit the children did not challenge the writ petition order; only the educational authorities came to Court with a hyper-technical stand on the 1 kilometre residence distance, and the Court holds that the State is not aggrieved by the single Judge's order.

¶33

Key takeaways

Since the Government would have to pay the fees even if the children were admitted in other schools, the Court sees no grievance for the appellants due to the order of the learned single Judge.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Clause 15, Letters Patent) dismissed — High Court of Judicature at Madras, 25.03.2025, Bench: S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar JJ. The State educational authorities (Director (Private Schools); District Educational Officer (Private Schools), Salem; Chief Educational Officer, Salem; Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Chinnasorakai) appealed to set aside the learned single Judge's order dated 29.07.2024 in W.P.No.17088 of 2024, which directed admission of the writ petitioner's (Krishnaveni's) child in Sri Rajendra Nursery & Primary School, Omalur Taluk, Salem District upon payment of necessary fees. The Division Bench held that Rule 4 of the State Rules prescribing residence within 1 kilometre of the school, being a beneficial enactment, cannot be applied as a straight jacket formula and a willing child cannot be refused admission; that the school did not challenge the writ order and only the authorities raised a hyper-technical distance objection; and that the State is not aggrieved since the Government would pay the fees even if the children were admitted elsewhere. Writ appeal dismissed, no costs; connected CMP No.6701 of 2025 closed.

¶1

W.A.No.780 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶7

W.A.No.780 of 2025

¶8

and

¶9

CMP No.6701 of 2025

¶10

The Director (Private Schools), Directorate of Private Schools, College Road, Chennai - 6.

¶11

The District Educational Officer (Private Schools), DEO Office, No.309, Collectorate, Salem.

¶12

The Chief Educational Officer, No.301, Collectorate, Salem - 636 001.

¶13

The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Chinnasorakai, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. ... Appellants

¶14

Vs.

¶15

Krishnaveni

¶16

The Principal,

¶17

Sri Rajendra Nursery & Primary School, Selavadai Village, Doramangalam Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. ... Respondents

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

W.A.No.780 of 2025

¶21

Prayer:

¶22

Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 29.07.2024 made in W.P.No.17088 of 2024.

¶23

For Appellants : Mr.J.C.Durai Raj Additional Government Pleader

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶26

Challenge is to the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.17088 of 2024 dated 29.07.2024, in and by which, a direction has

¶27

been issued to the 2nd respondent / District Educational Officer (Private Schools) and the 5th respondent / School to admit the child of the petitioner in 5th respondent School, upon payment of necessary fees by the petitioners, therein.

¶28

No doubt, Rule 4 of the State Rules, prescribes that a child should be a resident within 1 kilometre radius from the School concerned. But, this being a beneficial enactment, we cannot adopt a straight jacket formula. If the child is willing to attend the school, it is not open to the Government to say that the child should not be admitted in a particular school.

¶29

Page 2 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

W.A.No.780 of 2025

¶32

In the case on hand, the school, in which the children have been

¶33

directed to be admitted have not challenged the order made in the writ petition. It is only the educational authorities, who have come to Court with a hyper-technical stand that the children are residing beyond the distance of 1 kilometre from the school concerned and therefore, admissions cannot be granted. We do not think, the State is aggrieved by this order.

¶34

The learned Government Pleader would however, submit that if the children are admitted in other schools also, the Government will have to pay the fees. Therefore, we do not see any grievance for the appellants due to the order of the learned single Judge. Hence, this Writ Appeal is dismissed . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

[S.M.S,J.] [K.R.S,J.]

¶36

25.03.2025

¶37

veda Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶38

Page 3 of 5

¶39

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

¶40

W.A.No.780 of 2025