BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28/01/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)NO.1679 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 M.Ramanathan, The Manager (Correspondent/Secretary) Saraswathi Vidhyasala Nursery school, Sittilarai Village, Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli. .. Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent, dated 28.01.2010 made in Na.Ka.No.1849/Aa1/09, to quash the same as illegal and to direct the first respondent to grant approval to the nursery school Saraswathi Vidhyasala as the application for approval dated 11.06.2009 is pending for orders of the first respondent after the compliance report dated 19.11.2009. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Arulmozhi for Mr.Veera Kathiravan ^For Respondents... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, GA - - - - :ORDER
The petitioner has come forward to challenge an order, dated 28.1.2010
passed by the first respondent District Elementary Educational Officer, Trichy.
By the impugned order, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner Nursery
School and Elementary School was functioning without the department’s approval.
If any school is functioning in any of the residential area without approval of
the department, steps were taken to close that school. Since it was brought to
the notice of the first respondent that the petitioner’s Nursery School and
Elementary School was functioning without department approval, they were
directed to close the school. If any breach, action was to be taken with the
assistance of the police.
2.In the writ petition, notice was given to the Special Government
Pleader. Pending notice, in the application for interim stay, this court held
that the petitioner was directed to rectify the defects pointed out, pending
which status quo was directed to be maintained. On notice from this Court, the
respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 12.2.2010.
3.It is seen that the petitioner has a Nursery school, functioning in the
same campus as that of Saraswathi Vidhyalaya Aided Middle school. In the same
aided school, which was approved by the department, no other school can be
started. Therefore, necessary certificate should have been produced for grant of
approval of nursery school. Though it was claimed that the residents of that
area are demanding a nursery school. The petitioner had not obtained any
permission from the second respondent nor submitted any application for
approval. An improper application submitted by him was returned by the first
respondent on 24.12.2009. Though it was stated that the school was functioning
in the building known as Marudam, during inspection, it was found that the
nursery school is functioning in a rental building and rent was paid from the
maintenance grant. There was no separate building for the Nursery school. The
Nursery school cannot function in the compound where there was already pre-
existed aided middle school. There are no sufficient area for the playground for
the nursery school. There is no necessity to have any nursery school because
eligible students can be directly admitted to the elementary school in the first
standard. The order came to be passed after due publicity in newspapers.
4.The order, dated 25.1.2010 returning the application submitted by the
petitioner showed that they should produce the building plan, sale deed and the
fees to be charged from the students. They should also provide a separate play
ground. The existing place which is shown as toilet and play ground were shown
as the place for nursery school. There are not enough fire fighting equipments.
The Public Relations Officer attached to the Collectorate had issued a press
release on 23.12.2009 showing 79 nursery schools are to be closed. The name of
the petitioner’s school is shown in Sl.No.33 in the list. The petitioner was not
able to show any affiliation or approval for nursery school. Therefore, by
filing the writ petition of this nature, they cannot get an interim order and to
continue to run the school without approval.
5.It is needless to state that any educational institution if it is not
approved by the authorities in the manner known to law cannot as a matter of
right run the school. The defects pointed out by the respondents in the
application filed by the petitioner are more glaring. Pending challenge to the
impugned order, the court cannot allow the petitioner to run the school by way
of an interim order. It is not a case of mere defects that has been pointed out,
but the fundamental question was that the petitioner do not have any recognition
for running the nursery school. In the absence of the same, the writ petition is
misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
vvk
To
1.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappall