Disposed

Bharathiyar Nursery and Primary School v. The Director of Private Schools

Madras HC7 Jul 2026WP/25780/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A private nursery and primary school sought a direction to the Director of Private Schools to process its pending upgradation application to middle school status, based on a favourable DEO recommendation. The court directed consideration on merits with hearing within ten weeks, without expressing any view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to consider petitioner's application dated 06.05.2026 on merits, taking into account the DEO's recommendation, pass orders after hearing, within ten weeks.

Bharathiyar Nursery and Primary School Vs The… — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 25780 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

WP No.25780 of 2026

¶7

Bharathiyar Nursery and Primary School Represebted by its Correspondent, P.Shankar Variyankaval, Aandimadam Taluk, Ariyalur District- 621 806.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Director of Private Schools Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-06.

¶11

The District Educational Officer, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing first respondent/Director of Private Schools- to process the Proposal / recommendation forwarded by second Respondent (DEO, Ariyalur) vide Ref.Na.Ka.No.0305/A1/2026, dated 18.05.2026, consider petitioner’s application for upgradation of Bharathiyar Nursery and Primary School from a Nursery and Primary School (LKG to Standard V) to a Middle School (LKG to Standard VIII), and pass appropriate orders thereon in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.51, School Education (MS) Department, dated 02.03.2026, and Rule 8-A of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023, within a time frame to be fixed by this

¶14

Page1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

WP No. 25780 of 2026

¶17

Court.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr.E.Vijay Anand For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Elayaraj Kumar Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to first respondent/Director of Private Schoolsto process the proposal/recommendation forwarded by second Respondent (DEO, Ariyalur) vide Ref.Na.Ka.No.0305/A1/2026, dated 18.05.2026, consider petitioner’s application for upgradation of Bharathiyar Nursery and Primary School from a Nursery and Primary School (LKG to Standard V) to a Middle School (LKG to Standard VIII), and pass appropriate orders thereon in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.51, School Education (MS) Department, dated 02.03.2026, and Rule 8-A of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶21

Petitioner would submit that second respondent/District Educational

¶22

Officer, Ariyalur after inspecting the school premises on 08.05.2025 and upon verifying that petitioner school had complied with all prescribed norms under Annexure-111 to Rule 8(6)(a) of the Rules, forwarded a favourable recommendation/proposal to first respondent/Director of Private Schools vide proceedings in Ref.Na.Ka.No.0305/A1/2026, dated 18.05.2026, recommending

¶23

Page2 of 5

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 25780 of 2026

¶26

the grant of permission for upgradation. He would submit that despite the aforesaid recommendation having been duly forwarded by second respondent, first respondent has not passed any order on the proposal till date, without any justification, causing grave prejudice to petitioner and particularly, to the children admitted under the 25% RTE quota under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, who stand to lose continuity of elementary education upon completing Standard V, if the school is not upgraded.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in the absence of recognition, there is an imminent danger of petitioner being found to be an infraction of Section 5 and 12 (1)(c) of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

¶28

Learned Government Advocate for respondents would submit that they would consider petitioner’s application on its own merits and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, which was agreed to by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶29

5. In view thereof, there shall be a direction to first respondent, to consider petitioner’s application dated 06.05.2026 on its own merits, taking into account second respondent’s recommendation dated 18.05.2026 and pass

¶30

Page3 of 5

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 25780 of 2026

¶33

appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner, within a period of ten weeks from the date of uploading of web copy without waiting for the receipt of certified copy . It is

¶34

made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case.

¶35

6. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as

¶36

to costs.

¶37

07-07-2026

¶38

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

¶39

¶40