{"id":102295,"date":"2006-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006"},"modified":"2015-08-04T04:59:18","modified_gmt":"2015-08-03T23:29:18","slug":"director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Director Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Director Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 04\/11\/2006\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR\nAND\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nWRIT APPEAL (MD) NO.313 OF 2006\nand\nM.P.No.1 OF 2006\n\n\n1. Director of Elementary Education,\n   Chennai 6.\n\n2. District Elementary Educational\n   Officer, Thoothukkudi,\n   Thoothukkudi District.\n\n3. Assistant Elementary Educational\n   Officer,\n   Alkwarthirunagari 628 623.\n   Thoothukkudi District.\t\t...  \tAppellants\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n1. Tmt.S. Vigila\n   3\/127, Church Street,\n   Meignanapuram,\n   Thiruchendur Taluk,\n   Thoothukudi District.\n\n2. Manager,\n   Meerania Middle School,\n   Alagiamanavalapuram,\n   Alwarthirunagari,\n   Thoothukudi District.\t\t...  \tRespondents\n\n\n\n\t\tAppeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order\npassed by the learned single dated 13.4.2006 made in W.P.(MD) No.1641 of 2004.\n\n\n!For Appellants\t\t...\tMr.R. Viduthalai\n\t\t\t\tAdvocate General\n\t\t\t\tAssisted by\n\t\t\t\tMr.R. Janakiramulu\n\t\t\t\tSpecial Govt. Pleader\n\n\n^For Respondents\t...\tMr.K. Chellapandian for\n\t\t\t\tMr.V. Panneerselvam.\n\n\t\t\t\tMr.Issac Mohanlal,\n\t\t\t\tAmicus Curiae.\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
P.K. MISRA, J<\/p>\n
\tThe question relates to Teacher- Pupil ratio to be fixed in respect of
\nElementary school.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. The norm relating to teacher-pupil ratio has been laid down in
\nG.O.Ms.No.525 (School Education) dated 29.12.1997, which has been made effective
\nfrom 1.6.1998.  The norms relating to Elementary School as per the said G.O.,
\nare extracted hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“I. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (Standards I to V):\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) The teacher-pupil ratio of 1:40 will be followed.  Minimum of 2
\nSecondary Grade teachers up to a strength of 80 will be sanctioned.  In respect
\nof new Schools, first post will be created in the first year and second post in
\nthe second year.  One of the two posts will be in the grade of Headmaster.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) For every additional strength of 40, one post of Secondary Grade
\nteacher will be sanctioned i.e., the third post at 100, the fourth post at 140,
\nthe fifth post at 180 and so on.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) Regarding the bifurcation of a standard, additional sections will be
\ncreated when the strength exceeds 60 and so on in slabs of 40.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. The validity of such G.O., and the difficulty in enforcing such
\nG.O., were the subject matter of litigation and ultimately the Division Bench in
\nW.A.No.1768 of 1998 dated 9.11.2000, while approving the stand of the Government
\nas reflected in the counter, had upheld the validity of the G.O.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. Subsequently, however, a clarification was sought for by the
\nGovernment by filing W.A.M.P.No.5667 of 2003 and at that stage, the Division
\nBench observed :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“11. On a fair consideration of the entire matter, we come to the
\nconclusion that as per G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department dated
\n29.12.1997, the teacher-pupil ratio is 1:40 and only when the pupils’ strength
\nis at 80, second teacher’s post will be sanctioned and likewise when the
\nstrength is at 100, third teacher’s post will be sanctioned and the 4th
\nteacher’s post at 140 and fifth teacher’s post at 180 and so on.”
\n\t…\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In the result, paragraph 30 of the judgment is clarified as referred
\nin para 11 above.  If the appellants have got any difficulty in teaching their
\npupils without having proper teachers strength, as contended by them, it is for
\nthem to approach the Government and on such approach, the Government is directed
\nto consider the requests that would be made by the appellants in order to
\nprovide quality education.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. Following the aforesaid clarificatory observation, it has been
\ngenerally understood by the respondents that teacher-pupil ratio is fixed by
\ntaking into account the strength of the entire school.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Subsequently, a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High
\nCourt in the decision reported in 2006(4) CTC 34 (THE CORRESPONDENT, SACRED
\nHEART PRIMARY SCHOOL AND ANOTHER v. THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
\nKANYAKUMARI AND OTHERS),<\/a> observed :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“15. In other words, if there are five standards namely standards I to V
\nin an elementary school with the economic strength of not less than 20 in each
\nstandard, and each standard reaching 40 or 80 or 100 or 140 or 180 as the case
\nmay be, the fixation of the teacher public ratio as prescribed in the said
\nGovernment Order will have to be made that would provide necessary teaching
\nfaculty to man each standard\/class.  To put it differently or to sight an
\nanalogy if in an elementary there exists standard I to V and in each standard
\nthe students strength is not less than 60, the bifurcation of standards as
\nprescribed under Clause I(c) will have to be made and the required teacher-pupil
\nratio at the rate of 1:40 with a minimum of two secondary grade teachers upto a
\nstrength of 80 for each standard will have to be maintained.  If the ratio as
\nprescribed in the G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 is not applied in the above
\nsaid manner, that would result in total lack of required number of teachers to
\nman the minimum number of pupils in each standard, which would ultimately result
\nin great fall in the standard of education and such a position can never be
\nacknowledged or accepted as claimed by the respondents.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. The ratio of the subsequent Division Bench decision is to the
\neffect that the question of teacher-pupil ratio would depend upon the number of
\nStandards and Sections in the school.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. Since such observation made by the Division Bench apparently runs
\ncounter to some of the observations made in W.A.No.1768 of 1998, etc., disposed
\nof on 9.11.2000, the matter has been referred to Full Bench to resolve the
\ndispute.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. To say the least, the G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997,
\nparticularly relating to the Elementary School, is not happily worded. It is not
\nvery clear from the aforesaid instruction as to whether teacher-pupil ratio of
\n1:40 should be fixed on the basis of students’ strength in a particular standard
\nor students’ strength of the entire school in question irrespective of the
\nnumber of Standards in a school.  If such Government Order is to be understood
\nin the manner in which it has been projected hitherto based on some observations
\nhere and there in W.A.No.1768 of 1998, certain startling consequences will
\nfollow.  As is well known, elementary school consists of 5 standards i.e., from
\nStandard I to V.  If the minimum average strength of each standard is taken to
\nbe 20 (which was assumed to be the economic strength as apparent from the case
\nmade out before the Division Bench in W.A.No.1768 of 1998), total strength of
\nthe school would be 100 and as per the arithmetic formula projected, the school
\nwill have 3 teachers.  If the average strength of each standard is less than 20
\nand the total students’ strength is between 80 and 99, the school would have two
\nteachers.  Therefore, we have to imagine a situation where tender children
\nstudying in different standards, i.e., from standards I to V, will have to be
\nmanaged by o two teachers if the strength is between 80 and 99 and with three
\nteachers if the strength is between 100 and 139.  It is indeed very difficult to
\nimagine as to how  2 or even 3 teachers would “manage” as well as “educate”
\nstudents of standards I to V simultaneously.  It cannot be contemplated that any
\none teacher would be simultaneously teaching students of two separate standards
\nor may be even 3 standards.  It also cannot be imagined that some periods will
\nbe off for some of the Standards, in which event such children won’t be under
\nthe control of any teacher, resulting in total chaos and the students becoming
\ninevitable victims of unforeseen incidents.  It is very difficult for us to
\nvisualise that while issuing such Government Order, the Government had
\ncontemplated in the aforesaid manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 was issued superceding the
\nearlier norms fixing Teacher-Pupil ratio issued in G.O.Ms.No.250 Education
\nDepartment dated 29.2.1964 and Rule 17 and 18 of Madras Education Rules.
\nG.O.Ms.No.525 is held applicable to both the Government and Aided Recognised
\nPrivate Schools as per the judgment reported in (1999) 1 MLJ 625.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11. Insofar as the Madras Education Rules, Rule 17 was applicable to
\nthe Government Schools prior to the introduction of the present Government
\nOrder, which states that there should be one teacher for every standard and for
\nevery section of standards, in addition to the Headmaster, excluding Pandits and
\nspecial teachers.  Under Rule 18, no section of a class should have more than 40
\npupils upon the roll.  Even though the said Madras Education Rules are in the
\nnature of administrative instructions (as held by the Apex Court in the decision
\nreported in (1972) 1 SCC 492 (STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS  V.
\nS.K.KRISHNAMURTHI,<\/a> etc. etc.), the said instructions were holding the field till
\n1.6.1998, when G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 was ordered to be implemented.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12. Similarly, so far as the private schools are concerned,
\nG.O.Ms.No.250 states that minimum strength of any primary school shall be 20.
\nThe second teacher will be allowed where the overall average attendance is 30
\nand above; two teachers if the average attendance of the combined standards is
\n30 and above; three teachers if it exceeds 55; 4 teachers if it exceeds 75 and 5
\nteachers if it exceeds 95.  One section in a standard, if the student strength
\nis upto 35; two sections, if the strength is between 35 and 70; three sections
\nif the strength is between 71 and 105; four sections if the strength is between
\n106 and 140; 5 sections if it is between 141 and 175 and so on with the staff
\nslab of 35.  It is further stated in clause (5) that grant shall not be
\ncalculated for more teachers than there are standards or sections in the school
\nor than actually employed in the school, whichever is less.  (Emphasis added).
\nThus it is manifest that prior to the issue of G.O.Ms.No.525, each standard was
\nsanctioned with a post and division of standards are made in private schools if
\nit is more than 35 and Government Schools if it was more than 40.  The strength
\nin one section is now increased upto 60 from 35 or 40 as the case may be.  Even
\nin the earlier Division Bench decision in paragraph 32, same conclusion was
\nreached.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13. A complete primary\/elementary school must have standards 1 to 5.
\nEach standard has got different syllabus to be taught.  Each standard has
\nseparate time table during the school hours and therefore for all the five
\nstandards, there must be minimum of one teacher for each standard, particularly
\nwhen right to education upto the age of 14 years has been declared as
\nfundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by the Supreme
\nCourt in the decisions reported in (1992) 1 SCC 666 (Mohini Jain case); (1993) 1
\nSCC 645 (Unnikrishnan case); and 2005 (4) CTC 81 (Inamdar’s case) and more
\nparticularly after introduction of Article 21-A of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14. It was submitted by the learned Advocate General that validity
\nof the G.O., having  been  upheld,  the  procedure,  which  is  being followed
\non the basis of the observations made by the earlier Division Bench, need not be
\ndisturbed, particularly keeping in view the huge financial implications
\ninvolved.  The question as to whether the Government is bound to grant aid to
\nany particular school is not before us.  Even assuming that the Government would
\nsanction grant to all such schools, we do not think the question of financial
\ninvolvement can at all be an issue in such matters relating to primary
\neducation, particularly when right to such education is now recognised as a part
\nof the fundamental right in the shape of Article 21-A of the Constitution.  The
\nobvious intention is to impart quality education wherever possible and not
\nmerely to pay lip service to such sentiments expressed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15. The learned Advocate General argued that because of the limited
\nresources available to the Government, the Teacher-Pupil ratio is modified from
\nthe original ratio and the Teacher posts are sanctioned based on the ratio 1:40
\nafter the strength exceeds 60.  The contention that the limited resources or
\nwant of finance cannot be a ground to sanction less number of teaching post to
\nthe schools both in Government and aided schools.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16. The submission that want of finance is the reason for revising
\nthe Teacher-Pupil ratio cannot be countenanced in view of the settled position
\nof law.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn AIR 2000 SC 634 (CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. RAJNI VALI),<\/a> in paragraph
\n6, the Supreme Court held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t” 6. … imparting primary and secondary education to the students is the
\nbounden duty of the state administration.  It is a constitutional mandate that
\nthe State shall ensure proper education to the students on whom the future of
\nthe Society depends.  In line with this principle, the State has enacted Statute
\nand framed Rules and Regulations to control\/regulate establishment and running
\nof private schools at different levels.  The State Government provides grant-in-
\naid to private schools with a view to ensure that the standard of teaching does
\nnot suffer on account of paucity of funds.  It needs no emphasis that
\nappointment of qualified and efficient teachers is a sine qua non for
\nmaintaining high standard of teaching in any educational institution.  Keeping
\nin mind these and other relevant factors this Court in number of cases has
\nintervened for setting right any discriminatory treatment meted out to teaching
\nand non-teaching staff of a particular institution or a class of institutions.”\n<\/p>\n
In paragraph 10, the Supreme Court considered the contention of want of fund in
\nthe following manner :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“10. Coming to the contention of the appellants that the Chandigarh
\nAdministration will find it difficult to bear the additional financial burden if
\nthe claim of the respondents 1 to 12 is accepted, we need only say that such a
\ncontention raised in different cases of similar nature has been rejected by this
\nCourt.  The State Administration cannot shirk its responsibility of ensuring
\nproper education in schools and colleges ion the plea of lack of resources.  It
\nis for the authorities running the Administration to find out the ways and means
\nof securing funds for the purpose.  We do not deem it necessary to consider this
\nquestion in further detail.  The contention raised by the appellants in this
\nregard is rejected. …”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate General that while
\ninterpreting the Government Order, the subsequent Division Bench should not have
\nimported the principles relating to interpretation of statutes and particularly
\nthe ratio of the  Heydons case (1584) 3 Co.Rep.7 :76 ER 637) need not have been
\napplied.  In the present case, G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 cannot be
\nconstrued purely or merely as an administrative order, but such order purports
\nto lay down general principle affecting the system of primary education.  The
\nquestion raised before the Division Bench was relating to proper interpretation
\nof the Government Order.  Since the meaning ascribed to such Government Order is
\nlikely to raise ambiguity and uncertainty, obviously the court is required to
\nstep in to find out the real intention of the Government Order so that the
\ngeneral principle can be made effective and applicable consistent with the
\nprovisions in the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18. The further contention of the learned Advocate General is to the
\neffect that if the real meaning of the Government Order was not ascertainable,
\nsuch Order could have been quashed on the ground of indefiniteness or
\nuncertainty and there was no scope for interpreting and applying the Government
\nOrder in a particular manner.  We do not think such a contention can be
\ncountenanced at the behest of the State.  When the State Government issues
\ncertain G.O intending to lay down a policy in certain matter and when there is
\nambiguity in the said Government Order, the same should be interpreted in a
\nreasonable manner to effectuate the intention and there is no embargo on the
\nCourt to apply the known principles of law applicable to interpretation of
\nstatutes.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t19. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that when a
\nDivision Bench decision was holding the field, the subsequent Division Bench
\nshould not have taken a view contrary to the earlier Division Bench without
\nreferring the matter to a larger Bench.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t20. In the present case, on a careful scrutiny, it is found that as
\na matter of fact the learned single Judge, who had initially decided the matter
\nin the decision reported in 1999(1) MLJ 635 (NORTH ARCOT AMBEDKAR & SAMBUVARAYAR
\nDISTRICT RECOGNISED PRIVATE AIDED  PRIMARY AND MIIDLE SCHOOLS MANAGERS AND
\nTEACHER MANAGERS ASSOCIATION, VELLORE v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS
\nCOMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI AND
\nOTHERS), had not decided anywhere that while considering the question of
\nstudent-teacher ratio, the strength of the students in the school as such is to
\nbe taken into account and the number of standards and strength of the students
\nin any individual standard was immaterial.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t21. The main question raised before the learned single Judge was
\nregarding validity of the Government Order and the learned single Judge upheld
\nthe validity of the said G.O.  In the appeal against such decision, the Division
\nBench had affirmed the decision of the learned single Judge.  As a matter of
\nfact, a careful perusal of the earlier Division Bench decision makes it clear
\nthat the submissions had been made even by the Government that the ratio
\nprescribed was in relation to a particular standard and not of the entire school
\nas a whole and at some places submissions have been made as if the students
\nstrength referred to in the Government Order related to the strength of the
\nentire school.  However, the Division Bench had nowhere categorically laid down
\nthat while considering the applicability of the Government Order, the students’
\nstrength of the entire school de hors the number of standards and students
\nstrength of the individual standard was to be considered.  Even the subsequent
\nclarificatory order had not categorically laid down as to whether the ratio has
\nto be fixed only on the basis of the students strength of the school as a whole
\nwithout reference to the students of each individual standard.  It may be that
\nsuch decision has been understood in many cases, as if the ratio is to be fixed
\non the students strength of the entire school, but, it cannot be concluded that
\nthe Division Bench had categorically laid down as a matter of law that the ratio
\nis to be fixed on the basis of the students strength of the entire school
\ncompletely ignoring the students strength of each individual standard.  As a
\nmatter of fact, the subsequent Division Bench decision has only purported to
\ninterpret the G.O.  In such a sense it cannot be said that the latter Division
\nBench has differed from the earlier Division Bench decision.  At any rate, since
\nthe matter is now before a larger Bench, the real issue is relating to proper
\ninterpretation to be given to G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t22. As rightly observed by the latter Division Bench, the
\nG.O.Ms.No.525 has to be interpreted in a meaningful manner keeping in view the
\nbackground in which such G.O. came to be issued.  As per the existing
\ninstructions applicable, the ratio of teacher was dependant upon students’
\nstrength in each individual standard, but it had been laid down that maximum
\nstrength in a particular section or a class should be 35 or 40.  In other words,
\neither no admission was required to be made in excess of 35 or 40 or if such
\nadmission was made taking relevant permission, an additional section was
\nrequired to be created.  In the context of the aforesaid background, the present
\nG.O.Ms.No.525 indicates that an additional section is required to be created
\nonly when the students’ strength in a standard becomes 60 or more. It is evident
\nthat G.O.Ms.No.525 has intended to change this aspect and that is the reason why
\nit has been indicated that when the students strength becomes 100, a  third
\nteacher can be appointed.  If it has to be understood that the ratio of 1:40 is
\nto be maintained in respect of the entire school, it is not understood as to why
\nit would be laid down in the G.O. that a third teacher would be available when
\nthe students strength reaches 100. In normal course, the third teacher would be
\nprovided only when the students strength reaches 120 and not 100.  This is
\nrather indicative of the fact that the G.O. was concerned about the creation of
\nadditional section.  If the students’ strength in a particular standard remains
\n60 and below, there is no necessity to create an additional section and the
\nnecessity to create additional section arises only when the student strength in
\na particular standard exceeds 60 and that is why it has been stated that if
\nstudents’ strength is further increased by 40 more, another teacher would be
\nsanctioned or would be required.  The G.O. cannot be interpreted to do away with
\nrequirement of having at least one teacher for each standard or section
\n(wherever creation of additional section is justified).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t23. Keeping in view the various relevant aspects, we feel that
\nG.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 should be interpreted in the following manner:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(1) The ratio of students-teacher strength as indicated in the G.O.
\nshould be primarily considered by taking each individual standard\/section as a
\nunit.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(2) The minimum strength of teachers required obviously should not
\nfall below the number of Standards\/Section in a school.  In other words, if
\nthere are five standards, obviously the minimum number of teachers should be
\nfive, out of which one would be the Headmaster.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(3) If the students’ strength in a particular Standard exceeds 60,
\nat that stage, an additional section is required to be created requiring the
\nsanction of a second teacher and the strength reaches 100, the post of a third
\nteacher is required.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(4) Even after maintaining the aforesaid ratio by taking into
\naccount the students strength of each individual standard and additional
\nsection, as the case may be, by keeping in view the teacher-students ratio 1:40
\nof the entire school if the teachers strength is required to be increased, the
\nsame has to be allowed, but in no case, the teachers strength should be less
\nthan the number of standards including the additional sections.  If more
\nteachers are thus sanctioned keeping in view the over all strength of the
\nschool, the authorities of the school should create additional section in
\nrespect of any particular Standard according to the need and convenience keeping
\nin view the standard of eduction.  This requirement is not only in respect of
\naided schools or Government schools, but also in respect of any private
\nrecognised school.  In other words, this ratio is to be maintained for any
\nschool which requires recognition.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t(5)It would be obviously open to the Government to formulate
\nappropriate norms in consonance with the above observation and provisions of the
\nconstitution.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t24.We place on record our appreciation for the fair manner in which
\nsubmissions were made by all the counsel.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t25.the writ appeal shall be listed before the Division Bench for
\ndisposal.\n<\/p>\n
gb.\n<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1. Director of Elementary Education,
\n   Chennai 6.\n<\/p>\n
2. District Elementary Educational
\n   Officer, Thoothukkudi,
\n   Thoothukkudi District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Director Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04\/11\/2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K. MISRA THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA WRIT APPEAL (MD) NO.313 OF 2006 and M.P.No.1 OF 2006 1. Director of Elementary […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDirector Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Director Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-03T23:29:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Director Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-03T23:29:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3641,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Director Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-03T23:29:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Director Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Director Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Director Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-03T23:29:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Director Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-03T23:29:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006"},"wordCount":3641,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006","name":"Director Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-03T23:29:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-elementary-education-vs-tmt-s-vigila-on-4-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Director Of Elementary Education vs Tmt.S. Vigila on 4 November, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102295\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}