BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/09/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD).No.14285 of 2009 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2009 P.Nagarajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, Directorate of School Education, Chennai. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Chief Educational Office, Theni- 625 531. 4.The District Educational Officer, 0/o.District Educational Officer, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. 5.The Headmaster, Sri Krishna Iyer Higher Secondary School, Chinnamanoor, Theni District 625 515. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take action on the report submitted by the third respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.1225/A4/2008, dated 09.03.2009, by taking over the management of the fifth respondent private school namely Sri Krishna Iyer Higher Secondary School situated at Chinnamanoor, Theni District as per law. !For petitioner ... Mr.S.P.Maharajan ^For respondents... Mr.R.Janakiramulu Special Government Pleader ***** :ORDER
The petitioner, claiming to be the President of the Parents and
Teachers Association, has come forward to initiate action in terms of the report
submitted by the third respondent dated 09.03.2009 so as to take over the
Management of the fifth respondent school.
2.By the communication referred to by the petitioner, the Chief
Educational Officer (CEO) found that since there is a dispute with reference to
the Management, which could not be resolved in the near future and the interest
of the children studying in the school, resorted to suspending the Management of
the fifth respondent in terms of Section 18-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized
Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)
and the only course open to the Government is accepting the recommendation made
by the District Educational Officer and in the interest of students, the school
can be temporarily closed and alternative arrangement can be made. The said
communication was addressed to the Director of School Education, Chennai.
3.It is not clear as to how the petitioner has come forward to
file such a writ petition, asking the State Government to initiate action in
terms of the recommendation made by CEO. A perusal of Section 18-A of the Act
clearly says that the Government can take action only upon a report sent by the
Director of School Education and they must be satisfied that the school was
indulging in mall-administration, lapse or irregularities or had neglected to
discharge the duties imposed or to perform any function entrusted to such
Management. Even if such a report is available with the State Government, they
must give opportunity to the Management to make representation and only by
recording reasons in writing by an order, they can suspend the Management.
4.In the present case, the CEO not only recommended suspension but
also recommended the closure of the school, which can be done only in terms of
Section 34 of the Act. Even there, the State Government only on a report from
the competent authority and on their own must be satisfied that the educational
agency of the school had neglected to discharge the duties imposed or to perform
any function entrusted by the or under the Act and it is exorbitant in the
interest of school education to take over the management of such private school.
5.Both in the case of Section 18-A or in the case of Section 34 of
the Act, the State Government must be informed by the Director of School
Education and there must be a satisfaction of the State Government and also
involves a show cause notice to the Management. Such statutory functions
entrusted to the State Government has to be discharged in a responsible manner
and the petitioner cannot approach this Court with a writ of Mandamus directing
the State Government to act upon a report of the third respondent, which is not
even a competent authority in both the provisions of the Act. Further the said
communication is only an internal communication and the petitioner being the
President of the Parents and Teachers Association cannot invoke the writ
jurisdiction to achieve something, which is not contemplated under the Act. If
it is being the President of Parents and Teachers Association or parent of the
children studying in the school, in both cases, the interest of the children has
to be taken into account in any order passed by the State Government.
Therefore, it is not for the petitioner to say as to how the State Government
has to act in a particular manner without the statutory being available to the
petitioner. The writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
There is no order as to cost.
gcg
To
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
Directorate of School Education,
Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Chief Educational Office,
Theni- 625 531.
4.The District Educational Officer,
0/o.District Educational Officer,
Uthamapalayam, Theni District.