{"id":229074,"date":"2002-07-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002"},"modified":"2016-03-26T20:18:15","modified_gmt":"2016-03-26T14:48:15","slug":"tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"Tamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Tamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 19\/07\/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\n\nWrit Petition No. 197 of 1993\n\nTamil Nadu Matriculation and\nCBSE School Teachers' Association,\nrepresented by its General Secretary,\nAnna Nagar, Madras-40.                    .. Petitioner.\n\nVs.\n\n1.State of Tamil Nadu,\n  represented by the Commissioner and\n  Secretary to Government,\n  Education Department,\n  Fort St. George, Madras-9.\n\n2. The Director of School Education,\n   College Road, Madras-600006.\n\n3. Tamil Nadu Tamil and English\n   Schools Association, Madras-93,\n   represented by the General Secretary\n   B.T. Kumar.                            .. Respondents.\n\n\nPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,  for  issuance  of  a\nWrit of Declaration as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner:  Mr.  K.  Chandru, Senior counsel for\n                 Mr.  D.  Hariparanthaman.\n\nFor respondents:  Mr.  R.  Muthukumaraswamy, Addl.,\n                  Advocate General assisted by Mr.  V.R.  Rajasekaran,\n                  Spl.  Govt., Pleader (Education) for R-1 and R-2.\n\n                  Mr.  V.  Selvaraj<\/a> for Mr.  P.  Chandrasekaran for  R-3.\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Tamil  Nadu Matriculation and CBSE School Teachers’ Association seeks to issue
\na Writ of Declaration declaring that the Code of Regulations for Matriculation
\nSchools framed by the Government of  Tamil  Nadu,  Education  Department-first
\nrespondent  herein,  in consultation with the second respondent as ultra vires
\nof the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools  (Regulation)  Act,
\n1973 and the Rules framed thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The  case  of  the  petitioner  Association is as follows:  The petitioner
\nAssociation is a body registered under the Tamil Nadu  Societies  Registration
\nAct,  1975  and  their Association has substantial teachers working in various
\nMatriculation Schools in the State of Tamil Nadu.  The  Matriculation  Schools
\nin  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu were initially affiliated to the University of
\nMadras created under the Madras  University  Act,  1923.    Subsequently  when
\nMadurai  Kamaraj  University  was  formed  such  of  the Matriculation Schools
\noperating in Madurai Area and which were originally under affiliation  to  the
\nMadras University  were  transferred  to  the Madurai-Kamaraj University.  The
\nTamil Nadu Legislature passed the enactment called the Tamil  Nadu  Recognised
\nPrivate Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1974) with a view
\nto regulate  the  recognised schools in the State of Tamil Nadu.  By virtue of
\nSection 1 (3), the Act applies to all  private  schools.    The  Matriculation
\nschools  which  were  originally  affiliated  to  the  Madras  University  and
\nMadurai-Kamaraj University were excluded by Section 2 (7) (c)  and  hence  the
\nprovisions of  the  Act  were  not made applicable to them.  In July, 1976 the
\nSyndicate of the Madras  University  by  a  Resolution  decided  to  drop  the
\naffiliation of Matriculation Schools as also from conducting the Matriculation
\nexaminations.   Thereafter,  instead of applying the provisions of the Private
\nSchools Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the first respondent  transferred
\nthe control of the Matriculation Schools to a board with the second respondent
\nas its Chairman.   This position was affirmed by issuing a G.  O.Ms.No.  2816,
\nEducation, dated 29-12-1976.    Subsequently,  the  first  respondent  ordered
\nconstitution of  the  Board  of  Matriculation  Schools-vide G.O.Ms.No.  1720,
\ndated 25-7-1977  by  which  they  formed  the  Board  and  defined  terms  and
\nconditions and   functions   of  the  Board.    The  Code  applicable  to  the
\nMatriculation Schools and recognised by the Director of School Education  came
\ninto force  with  effect  from  1-6-78.   After the introduction of the plus 2
\nscheme, the Matriculation Schools also started following the Higher  Secondary
\nSchool  course pattern and the syllabus and the curriculum adopted by them are
\nthe same.  The public examination which is  called  Matriculation  Examination
\nwhich was originally conducted by the University is now being conducted at the
\nend of  the  10th  Standard  by  the Director of Government Examinations.  The
\nmedium of instruction in the Matriculation Schools is  English.    Instead  of
\napplying  the  provisions  of  the  Private Schools Act, the second respondent
\nwithout authority of law, are now applying the socalled “Code  of  Regulations
\nfor  Matriculation  Schools”  and these Regulations are no longer referable to
\nthe provisions of the Private Schools (Regulations) Act and the  Rules  framed
\nthereunder.  Those provisions virtually deny the teachers, their conditions of
\nservice which are guaranteed by the Private Schools (Regulations) Act.  Though
\nunder  the  Private  Schools  Act,  the  Management has to constitute a School
\nCommittee, it has power to take disciplinary action.  In case of  disciplinary
\naction,  prior approval of the competent authority has been made mandatory and
\nagainst dismissal for the teachers, a first appeal is provided to an appellate
\nauthority and thereafter, a second appeal to the second  appellate  authority,
\nwhich is a Judicial Tribunal.  Such statutory provisions are not available for
\nteachers working  in  the  Matriculation Schools.  The Code of Regulations for
\nMatriculation Schools will have no statutory force.  The  strange  arrangement
\nmade  in  respect of Matriculation Schools by-passing legislative enactment is
\ntotally arbitrary and incomprehensible and as such liable to be declared  null
\nand void.    In  the Matriculation schools, teachers not only do the increased
\nworkload but are denied  legitimate  salary  payable  to  them  and  they  are
\ndeprived of statutory cover granted as provided under the Tamil Nadu Act 29 of
\n1974.   The  Regulations for Matriculation Schools do not have statutory force
\nwith regard to the job security of the teachers working  therein;  accordingly
\nthe  same  is  violative of Article 2 1 of the Constitution read with Articles
\n41, 42 and 43 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Additional  Secretary  to  Government,   School   Education   Department,
\nSecretariat, Chennai-9 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents,
\nwherein  it is stated that in 1975, there were 30 Matriculation Schools, 29 in
\nthe jurisdiction of the Madras University  and  one  in  the  jurisdiction  of
\nMadurai Kamaraj  University.   There were 5 Matriculation Schools in the Union
\nTerritory of Pondicherry affiliated to Madras University.  All  these  schools
\nwere fee levying and the medium of instruction in all of them was English.  No
\ngrants were  being  given to these schools.  The students therein appeared for
\nthe Matriculation  Examination  conducted  by  the  University.    The  Madras
\nUniversity  at  its meeting of the Syndicate in August, 1975 proposed that the
\nMatriculation Schools under its control in Tamil Nadu be  transferred  to  the
\nGovernment  Department  of Schools Education on the ground that the University
\nshould concern itself with higher education and had to bear no  responsibility
\nto  run schools and that it had no proper machinery and expertise to supervise
\nthe academic  performances  of  these  schools.    At  the  instance  of   the
\nGovernment,  the ViceChancellor of the Madras University convened a meeting of
\nthe managements of the Matriculation schools with Government and University on
\n19-7-76 and certain recommendations  were  made.    The  recommendations  were
\nexamined by  the  Government  and  by  G.O.Ms.No.  2816, Education Department,
\ndated 29-12-76, passed an order to the effect that  a  separate  Matriculation
\nBoard  be  constituted  under  the  Chairmanship  of  the  Director  of School
\nEducation.  The Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu and  Pondicherry  will  be
\naffiliated  to the above Board and they would continue to be fee based and use
\nEnglish as medium of instruction.  The  definition  of  “private  schools”  in
\nSection  2  (7) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act,
\n1973 does not include Matriculation Schools since  in  Tamil  Nadu  they  were
\nunder  the control of the University and not established by the aforesaid Act.
\nPursuant to the decision of the University and the Government Order,  all  the
\nMatriculation  schools  were  transferred to the administrative control of the
\nDirector of School Education and it was decided by the Board of  Matriculation
\nSchools  at  its  first meeting held on 18-2-78 to frame a code of Regulations
\nfor Matriculation Schools.  An eight member sub-committee was constituted.  By
\nframing the Code, none of the rights which were then available to the teachers
\nwere taken away.  All the terms that existed prior to framing of the said Code
\ncontinue to be in existence even after the framing of the Code except for  the
\nfact  that  the  schools  which  were  under the administrative control of the
\nUniversity  are  now  under  the  administrative  control  of  the  Board   of
\nMatriculation Schools.  Therefore, there is no legal compulsion to bring these
\nschools under  the  control  of  Tamil  Nadu  Act  29  of  1974.   The Code of
\nRegulations for Matriculation Schools is a comprehensive and complete Code and
\nthere is no need to follow the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private
\nSchools (Regulation) Act, 1973.  The teachers and other non-teaching staff are
\ngiven protection by the Management of the Matriculation schools.  The Code  of
\nRegulations  for  Matriculation  schools  is  more exhaustive and provides all
\nremedies for the teachers in Chapter VI and there is  no  need  to  adopt  the
\nPrivate Schools  Act.    The  provisions  of  the Code are not contrary to the
\nprovisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The impleaded third respondent, namely, Tamil Nadu Tamil  Nadu  Tamil  and
\nEnglish   Schools   Association,  Madras-93  has  filed  a  counter  affidavit
\nreiterating the stand taken by the respondents 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
5.  In the light of the above pleadings, I  have  heard  Mr.    K.    Chandru,
\nlearned senior    counsel    for   the   teachers   Association,   Mr.      R.
\nMuthukumaraswami, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents 1 and  2
\nand Mr.  V.  Selvaraj for third respondent-schools Association.\n<\/p>\n
6.  Mr.   K.    Chandru,  after  taking me through the Code of Regulations for
\nMatriculation Schools as well as the Tamil  Nadu  Recognised  Private  Schools
\n(Regulation)   Act,  1973  and  the  Tamil  Nadu  Recognised  Private  Schools
\n(Regulation) Rules,  1974  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Rules”),  has
\ncontended  that  those  provisions  in  the  Code  for  Matriculation  Schools
\nvirtually deny the  teachers,  and  their  conditions  of  service  which  are
\nguaranteed by  the  Act.    He  also  contended  that  inasmuch as the Code of
\nRegulation for  Matriculation  schools  will  have  no  statutory  force,  the
\nManagement  of  the Matriculation Schools are left to the whims and fancies of
\nthe owners of these schools.  He further contended that by-passing legislative
\nenactment only in respect of Matriculation schools is  totally  arbitrary  and
\nincomprehensible.   According  to  him,  the Management of these matriculation
\nschools function in a most  authoritarian  fashion  and  to  their  whims  and
\nfancies  since  they  are not amenable to any statutory control in view of the
\nsegregation of these Matriculation schools  by  the  respondents’  self-styled
\napplication of  Code  for the Board of Matriculation Schools.  Inasmuch as the
\nRegulation for Matriculation schools do not have a statutory force with regard
\nto the job security of the teachers working in the Matriculation schools,  the
\nsame  is  violative  of  Article  21  read  with Articles 41, 42 and 43 of the
\nConstitution of India.  On the other hand, Mr.  R.  Muthukumaraswami,  learned
\nAdditional  Advocate  General,  after  tracing  the  history  of Matriculation
\nSchools, the decision taken by the Madras and  Madurai  Universities,  various
\norders  of  the Government for constituting a separate Board for Matriculation
\nSchools and the Code of Regulation, would contend that in  view  of  the  fact
\nthat  the  Matriculation  Schools  came  from different stream, they are being
\ngoverned by a separate Code which were formulated to  govern  the  Regulation.
\nHe  also contended that by framing the Code none of the rights which were then
\navailable to the teachers were taken away, on the  other  hand,  the  Code  of
\nRegulation   provide  protection  and  remedies  to  the  teachers  and  other
\nnon-teaching members as per Chapter VI and VII of  the  said  Code.    In  any
\nevent,  according  to him, the Government is well within its powers to frame a
\nCode  of  Regulations  and  issue  executive  instructions  for  Matriculation
\nSchools.   He  further  contended  that  the  provisions  of  the Code are not
\ncontrary to the provisions  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Recognised  Private  Schools
\n(Regulation)  Act  and  they  are  not  in  violation  of Article 21 read with
\nArticles 41, 42 and 43  of  the  Constitution  of  India  as  claimed  by  the
\npetitioner.  Mr.   V.    Selvaraj,  learned  counsel  appearing  for the third
\nrespondent also highlighted the various  clauses\/safeguards  for  the  service
\nconditions  of  the  teachers  provided in the Code and contended that without
\nfollowing those provisions, the Management cannot terminate the services of  a
\nteacher or  a  member  of  non-teaching  staff.  He also contended that in the
\nlight of the qualifications prescribed for the teachers and staff, salary  are
\nbeing paid on par with those in Government schools, and provision is also made
\nin  the Code for filing appeal and Second appeal etc.; hence there is no merit
\nin the claim made by the petitioner Association and prayed  for  dismissal  of
\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n
7.  I have carefully considered the rival submissions.\n<\/p>\n
8.   This  writ petition, filed by the Matriculation and CBSE School Teachers’
\nAssociation, is mainly concerned with such of those provisions in the Code  of
\nRegulations   for  Matriculation  Schools,  which  deny  the  teachers,  their
\nconditions of services which are  guaranteed  by  the  Tamil  Nadu  Recognised
\nPrivate  Schools  (Regulations)  Act,  1  973 (hereinafter referred to as “the
\nPrivate Schools Act”).  In other words,  it  is  the  main  grievance  of  the
\nAssociation that having enacted the Act and issued several instructions to the
\nMatriculation  Schools,  by  virtue  of  those  provisions,  the  control  and
\nadministration of the Matriculation Schools could have been brought under  the
\ndefinition “private  schools”.    Before  considering  these  issues  and  the
\nrelevant provisions from the Act as  well  as  the  Code  of  Regulations  for
\nMatriculation  Schools, I shall refer certain facts relating to the history of
\nthe Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu.  The  particulars  furnished  in  the
\ncounter  affidavit  of  the  Additional  Secretary  to  the Government, School
\nEducation Department, Chennai-9 show that in 1975 there were 30  Matriculation
\nSchools,  29  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Madras University and one in the
\njurisdiction of Madurai  Kamaraj  University.    There  were  5  Matriculation
\nSchools in the Union Territory of Pondicherry affiliated to Madras University.
\nAll  these  schools  were  fee levying and the medium of instruction in all of
\nthem was English.  No grants were given to these schools.   They  had  created
\nthe  endowments stipulated by the University as well as the facilities for the
\ncourse of  study.    The  students  therein  appeared  for  the  Matriculation
\nExamination conducted  by  the  University.    It  is  clear  that  all  these
\nMatriculation schools were affiliated and controlled by  the  Universities  in
\nthis State.  However, the Madras University at its meeting of the Syndicate in
\nAugust,  1975 proposed that all the Matriculation schools under its control in
\nTamil Nadu be transferred to the Government Department of School Education  on
\nthe ground that the University should concern itself with higher education and
\nthat  there  was no need to bear the responsibility to run schools and that it
\nhad no proper machinery and expertise to supervise the  academic  performances
\nof these  schools.  It is further seen that at the instance of the Government,
\nthe Vice-Chancellor of  the  Madras  University  convened  a  meeting  of  the
\nmanagements  of  the Matriculation Schools with Government and University on 1
\n9-7-1976.  The following recommendations were made in the said meeting:\n<\/p>\n
“1.  The Government be requested to set up a Board of Matriculation Schools on
\nwhich some Principals\/Headmasters of the Schools,  Educators,  the  University
\nand  the Department Officials, be represented with the Board being responsible
\nfor the care and maintenance of the Schools.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Schools to continue to be fee-based and to be permitted to continue to
\nuse English as their medium of instruction;\n<\/p>\n
3.  They be continued to have their present freedom to innovate with regard to
\ntheir curriculum, except for the last two years  when  they  prepare  for  the
\nexaminations;\n<\/p>\n
4.   The  Director of School Education be requested to examine the possibility
\nof setting up a separate Inspectorate for Matriculation Schools;\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Matriculation Schools be encouraged  to  start  the  Higher  Secondary
\nCourse,  viz.,  Standards  XI  and  XII, under the supervision of the Board of
\nHigher Secondary Education;\n<\/p>\n
6.  Until the Government passed an order along the above lines the  University
\nto  continue to be responsible for conducting Matriculation Examination in the
\nsummer of 1977 and for the transitional arrangements in  1978  and  subsequent
\nyears;\n<\/p>\n
7.   A separate Board of Matriculation Schools be constituted who will arrange
\nfor the first 10 years Matriculation Examination  which  to  be  held  in  the
\nsummer of 1978.”\n<\/p>\n
It  is  further seen that on 3-8-76, the Vice-Chancellor, University of Madras
\ncommunicated that the Syndicate had approved the above recommendations.    The
\nSyndicate,  Madurai  University  also  resolved  to  accept  the  views of the
\nGovernment.  As regards the Matriculation Schools in the State of Pondicherry,
\nit had been reported  that  the  Government  of  Pondicherry  would  like  the
\nMatriculation  Schools in Pondicherry affiliated to the Board of Matriculation
\nSchools proposed to be set up by the State of Tamil Nadu and that  they  would
\nlike  one  of their Education Department officials represented on the proposed
\nBoard.  After examining all the above proposals,  the  Government  passed  the
\nfollowing orders in G.O.Ms.No.  2816, Education Department, dated 29-12-1976.\n<\/p>\n
“1.   A  separate Matriculation Board be constituted under the Chairmanship of
\nthe Director of School Education;\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry will be affiliated
\nto the above Board and they would continue to be fee based and use English  as
\nMedium of  Instruction.   They would continue to have their present freedom to
\ninnovate with regard to the curriculum except for the last two years when they
\nprepare students for the  public  examinations.    The  other  recommendations
\nreferred to in paragraph 2 above were also approved by the Government?.”\n<\/p>\n
On  the  basis  of  the  suggestion  of  the Director of School Education, the
\nGovernment ordered the constitution  of  Board  of  Matriculation  Schools  in
\nG.O.Ms.No.   1720,  Education  dated  25-7-1977  and  also  defined the terms,
\nconditions and functions of the  Board.    An  Inspectorate  of  Matriculation
\nSchools was  also  formed in G.O.Ms.No.  2678, Education dated 28-12-1977 with
\nan Inspector in the rank of a District Educational  Officer.    In  the  first
\nmeeting  held  on 18-2-78, the Director of School Education as the Chairman of
\nthe Board of Matriculation Schools decided that the code of regulations  might
\nbe  compiled  for  these schools and appointed an “8 member sub-committee” for
\nthe said purpose.  It is also brought to my notice that  the  draft  code  was
\ncirculated  to  heads  of all the Matriculation Schools for their comments and
\nsuggestions and the code had finally been adopted by the Tamil Nadu  Board  of
\nMatriculation Education and it came into force with effect from 1-6-197 8.\n<\/p>\n
9.   It is relevant to refer the definition of the expression “private school”
\nin Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools ( Regulation) Act, 1973, which is  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“2 (7) “private school” means a pre-primary, primary, middle or high school or
\nhigher  secondary  school  or  any  other  institution  imparting education or
\ntraining, established and administered or maintained by any person or body  of
\npersons, and recognised by the competent authority under this Act but does not
\ninclude a school or an institution-\n<\/p>\n
(a) imparting technical or professional education;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  established  and  administered or maintained by the Central Government or
\nthe State Government or any local authority;\n<\/p>\n
(c) maintained or approved by, or affiliated to, any University established by
\nlaw; or<\/p>\n
(d) giving, providing or imparting religious instruction alone,  but  not  any
\nother instruction;”\n<\/p>\n
The  above  definition  makes it clear that the schools maintained or approved
\nby, or affiliated to, any University  established  by  law  are  not  “private
\nschools” within  the  meaning  of  Section  2 (7) (c) of the Act.  There is no
\ndispute that these Matriculation Schools were affiliated to Universities  till
\nthe   Universities  decided  to  transfer  those  schools  to  the  Government
\nDepartment of School Education.  In view of the origin and of  the  fact  that
\nthe  Matriculation  Schools  were  affiliated  to  Madras  and Madurai Kamaraj
\nUniversities and subsequently transferred  to  the  Government  Department  of
\nSchool  Education and in the light of clause (c) of sub-Section (7) of Section
\n2 of the said Act, all Matriculation Schools do not come under the purview  of
\nTamil Nadu  Recognised  Private  Schools  (Regulation)  Act.    I have already
\nreferred  to  that  only  on  the  request  of  the  Universities,   all   the
\nMatriculation  Schools  were  transferred to the administrative control of the
\nDirector of School Education and based on the decision, a Code  of  Regulation
\nfor Matriculation  Schools  were framed by 8 member sub-committee.  It is also
\nnot disputed that the provisions of the said Code are almost on the  lines  of
\nthe  provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act.
\nThe distinctive features are that the Matriculation Schools enjoyed  power  to
\ncollect fee.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Now  I  shall  consider  the salient features of the Private Schools Act
\nrelating to the service conditions of the teachers.  Mr.  K.  Chandru, learned
\nsenior counsel  for  the  petitioner,  by  drawing  my  attention  to  various
\nsafeguards provided for teachers in the Private Schools Act and the Rules made
\nthereunder,  would  contend that in the absence of similar statutory enactment
\nin the Code, the teachers in the Matriculation Schools are being exploited  by
\nthe  Management  by applying the terms of contract between the teacher and the
\nManagement and the Code of Regulations.   It  is  true  that  in  the  Private
\nSchools  Act,  every  private  school  according  to  Chapter  IV  is bound to
\nconstitute a “School Committee” (Section 15) and the said School Committee  is
\nempowered  to  deal  with  the  administration  including  the  power  to take
\ndisciplinary action (Section 18) and under Section 19, service conditions  are
\nto be  framed  by  the  Government.    It  is  further  seen  that  in case of
\ndisciplinary action, prior approval of the competent authority has  been  made
\nmandatory  and  against dismissal for the teachers, a first appeal is provided
\nto an appellate authority and  thereafter,  a  second  appeal  to  the  second
\nappellate authority, which is a Judicial Tribunal.  Further, it is pointed out
\nthat there are restrictions on the part of the private schools from suspending
\ntheir teachers for an indefinite period.  It is also brought to my notice that
\nunder  Section  28  of the Act, overriding powers are given over any other law
\nfor the time being in force and\/or any  award  or  agreement  or  contract  of
\nservice.  It is also brought to my notice that under Section 34 of the Private
\nSchools  Act,  if any private school management has neglected to discharge its
\nduties and functions, then Government can take over  the  management  of  such
\nschool.  By pointing  out  all  these  statutory provisions, Mr.  K.  Chandru,
\nlearned senior counsel for  the  petitioner,  vehemently  contended  that  the
\nPrivate Schools Act and the Rules framed thereunder are more beneficial to the
\nteachers  and  it is rather unusual that the respondents 1 and 2 have indulged
\nin framing of a Code separately for the Matriculation  Schools  by  exercising
\ntheir executive  fiat  over those schools.  There is no dispute that by virtue
\nof the provisions of the Private Schools Act and the Rules, the  teachers  and
\nstaff are provided with sufficient safeguards and security for their services.\n<\/p>\n
11.   Now I shall consider the salient features in the Code of Regulations for
\nthe Matriculation Schools.  I have already referred to the constitution of the
\nsub-committee, its recommendation and the ultimate decision of the  Government
\nin forming  Code  of  Regulations  for  Matriculation  Schools.    The Code is
\napplicable to Matriculation Schools recognised by  the  Department  of  School
\nEducation, Tamil   Nadu.    It  came  into  force  with  effect  from  1-6-78.
\nRegulation 2 defines the term “Matriculation Schools” which were recognised by
\nthe Universities of Madras and Madurai  and  subsequently  recognised  by  the
\nDepartment.   It  also clarifies that schools which will be admitted into this
\ncategory subsequent to the Regulations will also be called  the  Matriculation
\nSchools and  be  governed by the said Code.  According to Regulation 2 (viii),
\nEducation Agency means any person or body of persons which has established and
\nis administering or proposes to establish and  administer  such  Matriculation
\nSchools.   The schools will continue to be fee based and use English as medium
\nof instruction.  They will continue to be free as hitherto  to  innovate  with
\nregard  to  their  curriculum  except  for the last one year when they prepare
\nstudents for the public  examination  (Regulation  7).    This  Code  is  also
\napplicable  to  Higher  Secondary Section of Matriculation Schools (Regulation\n<\/p>\n
8).  Chapter II of the Code speaks about recognition of Matriculation Schools.
\nChapter III refers to admission and withdrawals.  Chapter IV relates to School
\nRegulations.  Chapter V speaks about financial side of Matriculation  Schools.
\nAs per Regulation 16 (ii), the teacher and non-teaching staff in Matriculation
\nSchools  should  be  paid at least as per the Government Scales of pay revised
\nfrom time to time.  Chapter VI is important for our purpose  which  refers  to
\nstaff of  Matriculation  Schools.    The staff will be qualified in accordance
\nwith the prescription  made  in  Annexure-VI  to  the  Code  (Regulation  17).
\nRegulation 18  prescribes  the  retirement  age of teachers and staff.  Clause\n<\/p>\n
(ii) of Regulation 18 insists that the staff in Matriculation Schools will  be
\npaid  at  the  rate  of  Government  scales  of  pay and they are eligible for
\nselection grade after 10 years of service as in other recognised schools.   It
\nalso  says  that  the  teachers  and  other  persons employed in Matriculation
\nschools shall be governed by the Code of Conduct, as specified in Annexure-VII
\nto the  Regulations.    In  a  permanent  vacancy,  member  of  teaching   and
\nnon-teaching  staff  shall  be  appointed only on probation for a period of 12
\nmonths from the date of his\/her appointment.  But  the  school  authority  may
\nbefore  the  expiry of that period extend it to a further period not exceeding
\n12 months for reasons to be given in writing to the teacher  and  acknowledged
\nby the  teacher  (Regulation  19).   Regulation 20 speaks about termination of
\nteachers or a member of non-teaching staff.\n<\/p>\n
“20.  Terminations-(A) In respect of Teachers  or  a  Member  of  non-teaching
\nstaff appointed temporarily or to act on probation.- The management shall have
\npower  to  terminate  the services of such teacher or a member of non-teaching
\nstaff without notice for any or all of the following reasons-\n<\/p>\n
(i) Wilful neglect of duty, serious misconduct, gross insubordination,  mental
\nunfitness,  suspension  or  cancellation  of  teachers’  certificates  by  the
\nDirector under the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) With notice of two months or two months salary in lieu  thereof  for  the
\nfollowing reasons:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  Incompetence,  (b) Retrenchment, (c) Physical unfitness or any other good
\ncause.\n<\/p>\n
Termination-(B) In respect of  teachers  or  a  member  of  nonteaching  staff
\nappointed  permanently.-  The management shall have the power to terminate the
\nservices of such teacher or a member of nonteaching staff without  notice  for
\nany or all of the following reasons:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  Wilful neglect of duty, serious misconduct, gross insubordination, mental
\nunfitness,  suspension  or  cancellation  of  teachers’  certificates  by  the
\nDirector under the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  With  three months notice or three months salary in lieu thereof for the
\nfollowing reasons:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) Incompetence (b) Retrenchment (c) Physical unfitness  or  any  other  good
\ncause.\n<\/p>\n
Subject to the proviso given below:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  The school authority shall not terminate the services of the said teacher
\nor a member of non-teaching  staff  whether  summarily  or  otherwise  without
\ninforming  him  in  writing of the grounds on which they intend to take action
\nand giving him\/her what in their view is a reasonable opportunity for  stating
\nhis\/her  case  in  writing  and  before coming to a final decision, shall duly
\nconsider his\/her statement and if he\/she so desires give  him\/her  a  personal
\nhearing or conduct an enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) After the conduct of the personal hearing or enquiry by the management of
\na  notice  will  be  issued to him\/her setting out the proposed punishment and
\nhe\/she shall be given a reasonable time to defend himself\/herself against  the
\nproposed punishment.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)  It shall be lawful for the school authority at any time if satisfied on
\nmedical evidence that the said teacher or a member of  non-teaching  staff  is
\nunfit  and  is likely for a considerable period to continue unfit by reason of
\nill-health, for the discharge of his\/her duties as such teachers or  a  member
\nof  non-teaching  staff  to terminate his\/her services on paying him\/her three
\nmonths salary less any amount which may have been paid  to  him\/her  as  leave
\nallowance  after  the  date  of his\/her last appearance in the school, for the
\nregular discharge of his\/her duties as teacher or  a  member  of  non-teaching
\nstaff subject to a minimum of one month’s full salary.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)  That the said teacher or a member of non-teaching staff shall not during
\nthe period of this agreement  which  he\/she  has  not  been  given  notice  of
\ntermination  of  his\/her  services  by  the  school authority or has not given
\nnotice to the school authority for such termination of his\/her services  apply
\nfor  an  appointment  under  any  other  authority  except  through the school
\nauthority and the penalty for any breach of this may at the discretion of  the
\nschool authority  be  dismissal  from service.  The school authority shall not
\nrefuse to forward such application but may decline to  relieve  him  when  the
\nneed  arises  unless  he\/she  gives  due notice or pays an amount equal to the
\nsalary for three months.\n<\/p>\n
(v) That the said teacher or  a  member  of  non-teaching  staff  when  he\/she
\nbecomes  a  permanent member of the staff of the said school shall be entitled
\nto have his\/her services terminated either by giving to the  school  authority
\nthree  months  notice  thereof  in  writing  or by paying that authority three
\nmonths salary in lieu of such notice.”\n<\/p>\n
Regulation 21 deals with imposition of minor punishments.  Even  for  awarding
\nminor  punishments,  the  Management  has to follow all the procedures as laid
\ndown for the major punishment.  As per Regulation 22, if  the  appointment  is
\nfor  a  period  exceeding  six  months,  the  management  shall  enter into an
\nagreement with the teacher or a member of nonteaching staff in Forms given  in
\nAnnexure-VIII to  the  Regulations.    Three  copies of the agreement shall be
\nexecuted and one copy shall be  furnished  to  the  teacher  or  a  member  of
\nnon-teaching  staff  concerned,  and  the  other copy shall be retained by the
\nmanagement and the third copy shall be forwarded to the Inspector.  Regulation
\n22A which provides for appeal is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“22A.  In all cases of punishments, except in cases,  of  censure,  an  appeal
\nlies  with  the Director in respect of the Principal\/ Headmaster\/Headmistress,
\nB.T.Assistants and other teachers drawing B.T.  Scale of Pay and for all other
\ncategories of staff including nonteaching staff the Inspector is the appellate
\nauthority.  An appeal shall lie with the Government against the orders  passed
\nby  the  Director  and similarly an appeal shall lie with the Director against
\nthe orders passed by the Inspector.  If the appeal is made  after  two  months
\nfrom the receipt of orders of punishment, it will be considered as belated.”\n<\/p>\n
Chapter VII  speaks  about leave rules.  As per Regulation 23, the leave rules
\napproved by the Government of Tamil Nadu for teaching and  non-teaching  staff
\nin other  recognised schools are applicable to Matriculation Schools also.  As
\nrightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, a perusal of all
\nthe aabove Regulations shows that by framing the  Code,  none  of  the  rights
\nwhich  have  been  available to the teachers were taken away and all the terms
\nthat existed prior to framing of the said Code continue  to  be  in  existence
\neven  after the framing of the Code except for the fact that the schools which
\nwere under the administrative control of the  University  are  now  under  the
\nadministrative control  of  the  Board  of  Matriculation schools.  It is also
\nclear that Matriculation Schools are granted recognition under  Regulation  10
\nof  the  Code  of  Regulations for Matriculation Schools by fulfilling certain
\nconditions.  The Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools  by  and  large
\nprovide  protection  and remedies to the teachers and other non-teaching staff
\nmembers under clauses 17 to 23 in Chapter VI and VII of the  said  Code.    In
\nother   words,  the  Code  of  Regulations  for  Matriculation  Schools  is  a
\ncomprehensive and complete Code and in the light of the definition  2  (7)  of
\nthe  Private  Schools Act, exclusion of Matriculation Schools from the purview
\nof the said Act, there is no need to follow the provisions of Private  Schools
\nAct.   No  doubt, there is no provision for constitution of “school committee”
\nin Matriculation Schools, however, as pointed out above, Chapter  VI  and  VII
\ndeal  with  qualification  of  the  staff,  the method\/ground for termination,
\nprocedure, major and minor punishments as well as provision for appeal to  the
\nDirector in respect of the Principal\/Headmaster\/ Headmistress\/B.T.  Assistants
\nand other  teachers drawing B.T.  scale of pay and for all other categories of
\nstaff including non-teaching staff the Inspector is the  appellate  authority.
\nFurther,  an appeal shall lie with the Government against the orders passed by
\nthe Director and an appeal shall lie  with  the  Director  against  the  order
\npassed by  the  Inspector.    In such circumstances, I am unable to accept the
\ncontentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
12.  Now I shall consider various decisions relied by both sides.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Mr.  K.  Chandru at the foremost relied  on  a  decision  in  Miss.    A.
\nSundarambal v.   Govt., of Goa, Daman and Diu and others<\/a>, reported in 1989 (1)
\nL.L.J.  61, wherein Their Lordships have held that, the teachers  employed  by
\neducational institutions, whether the said institutions are imparting primary,
\nsecondary,  graduate  or postgraduate education, cannot be called as “workmen”
\nwithin the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes  Act.    It  is
\nclear  from  the above conclusion that the teacher is not a workman though the
\nschool is an industry in view of the definition of ‘workman’ as it now stands.
\nLearned senior counsel very much relied on the following  observation  of  the
\nSupreme Court:  (para 10)<\/p>\n
“10.   We  may at this stage observe that teachers as a class cannot be denied
\nthe benefits of social justice?”\n<\/p>\n
After saying so, Their Lordships have directed the State Governments to  enact
\nappropriate   legislation  providing  for  adjudication  of  disputes  between
\nteachers and the Managements of the educational institutions.\n<\/p>\n
14.  In Bharat Sevashram Sangh v.  State of  Gujarat,  reported  in  (1986)  4
\nSupreme Court Cases 51, the Supreme Court, after considering Gujarat Secondary
\nEducation Act, 1972, particularly Section 36, observed that, (para 10)<\/p>\n
“10?..It  protects the tenure of the teachers and of the non-teaching staff of
\na registered private secondary school and acts as a shield  against  arbitrary
\nactions of the management result in wrongful termination of their services?..”\n<\/p>\n
15.  In Frank Anthony Public School Employees’ Association v.  Union of India,<\/a>
\nreported  in  (1986)  4  Supreme  Court Cases 707, the following conclusion of
\nTheir Lordships is pressed into service:  ( para 21)<\/p>\n
“21.  The result of our discussion is that Section  12  of  the  Delhi  School
\nEducation Act which makes the provisions of Chapter IV inapplicable to unaided
\nminority  institutions is discriminatory and void except to the extent that it
\nmakes Section  8(2)  inapplicable  to  unaided  minority  institutions.    We,
\ntherefore,  grant  a  declaration to that effect and direct the Union of India
\nand the Delhi Administration and its officers, to enforce  the  provisions  of
\nChapter  IV ( except Section 8(2) in the manner provided in the Chapter in the
\ncase of the Frank Anthony Public School.  The  management  of  the  school  is
\ndirected  not  to  give  effect to the orders of suspension passed against the
\nmembers of the staff.”\n<\/p>\n
16.  In Senthilnathan, T.  v.  The Chief Educational Officer, South Arcot Dt.,
\nreported in 1985 Writ L.R.  533, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held
\nthat the definition of a  private  school  is  wide  and  comprehensive  which
\nincludes  any  other  institution  imparting  education  or  training  without
\nreference to the categorisation of the institution as primary, middle or  high
\nschool or  secondary school.  In the light of Section 2 (7) (c) of the Private
\nSchools Act, I am of the view that the said decision is  not  helpful  to  the
\npetitioner’s case.\n<\/p>\n
17.  In Christy  Corers,  T.P.   v.  The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1992
\nWrit L.R.  83, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that  the  “Code”
\nitself contains only executive instructions.\n<\/p>\n
18.   The  other  decision  relied  on  by  the learned senior counsel for the
\npetitioner  is  in  the   case   of   Jawahar   College   Staff   Association,
\netc.\/Secretary, Jawahar Science  College,  etc.   v.  University of Madras and
\nothers, reported in 1994 Writ L.R.  84,  wherein  a  Division  Bench  of  this
\nCourt,  after referring to Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976,
\nhas observed that the executive power of the State Government to  that  extent
\ngets  circumscribed  and  it has to exercise its power only in conformity with
\nthe provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.   Absolutely  there
\nis  no  dispute  that  after  the  formation  of the Private Colleges Act, the
\nprovisions of the said Act and Rules framed thereunder alone are applicable to
\nPrivate  Colleges  and  the  management  and  teachers  are  bound  by   those
\nprovisions.\n<\/p>\n
19.   By  drawing  my attention to another decision in The Saliar Mahajana Hr.
\nSec.School v.  The Joint Director of Schools (Hr.  Sec.)<\/a> etc., (1995 Writ L.R.\n<\/p>\n
277), learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that  the  Rules
\nunder  the  Government  Order  are only Administrative Rules in so far as they
\nrelate to Aided Schools and they cannot be treated as statutory Rules.\n<\/p>\n
20.  The other decision is in Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar v.    Vishwa  Bharata
\nSeva  Samiti<\/a> (2001) 8 SCC 378, wherein the Supreme Court has held that “in the
\nabsence of such provision in the Act, it is not  open  to  the  Government  to
\nsupplement the Rules by executive orders.”\n<\/p>\n
21.  In the case of  Regina  v.    St.  A.H.E.  School, (AIR<\/a> 1971 S.C.  1920),
\nwherein the Supreme Court affirmed the view expressed by this Court that  “the
\nRules  were  not  statutory  Rules,  they  could  not enlarge the scope of the
\ncontract of employment  between  such  an  employee  of  the  school  and  the
\nmanagement.”\n<\/p>\n
22.   A  perusal  of  the  above  decisions  shows that (i) a teacher is not a
\nworkman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act
\nthough the School was an industry; (ii) the Code which contains only executive
\ninstructions  are  not  legally  enforceable  in a Court of law; and (iii) the
\nRules under Government Order are only administrative Rules under  Article  162
\nof the Constitution of India and they cannot be treated as statutory Rules.\n<\/p>\n
23.   Learned  Additional  Advocate General relied on the following passage in
\nthe Full Bench decision of this Court in Tamil Nadu Tamil and  English  School
\nAssociation v.  State (2000 (II) CTC 344 ):  (para 53)<\/p>\n
“53.   Coming  to  the  present case, as already pointed out the Matriculation
\nSchools have been teaching in English medium for over fifty years.  They  have
\nbeen  permitted  to  continue  ever  since  the date of recognition of all the
\nSchools and that recognition has been granted without any condition.”\n<\/p>\n
24.  Regarding the contention that based on the contract between  the  teacher
\nand  the  management under the Code of Regulations applicable to Matriculation
\nschools, the same cannot be enforced by exercising writ jurisdiction  of  this
\nCourt and to dispel the said doubt, learned Additional Advocate General relied
\non   a   decision   of   the   Supreme  Court  in  Shri  Anadi  Mukta  Sadguru<\/p>\n
S.M.V.S.J.M.S.Trust v.  V.R.  Rudani,<\/a> reported in AIR 1989 S.C.    1607.    In
\nthat  decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to power of the High
\nCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution held thus:  (para 19 and 21)<\/p>\n
“19?.The words “Any person or authority” used in Article 226  are,  therefore,
\nnot  to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the
\nState.  They may cover any other person or body performing public duty.    The
\nform of  th  e  body concerned is not very much relevant.  What is relevant is
\nthe nature of the duty imposed on the body.  The duty must be  judged  in  the
\nlight  of positive obligation owned by the person or authority to the affected
\nparty.  No matter by what means the duty is imposed.  If a positive obligation
\nexists mandamus cannot be denied.\n<\/p>\n
21.  Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the  ground
\nthat the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute.  Commenting on the
\ndevelopment of  this  law,  professor  De Smith states:  “To be enforceable by
\nmandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute.
\nIt may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed  by  character,  common
\nlaw,  custom  or  even  contract.”  (Judicial Review of Administrative Act 4th
\nEd.p.540).  We share this view.  The judicial control over the fast  expanding
\nmaze  of  bodies  affecting  the  rights  of the people should not be put into
\nwater-tight compartment.  It should remain flexible to meet  the  requirements
\nof variable  circumstances.    Mandamus  is  a  very wide remedy which must be
\neasily available ‘to reach injustice wherever it is  found’.    Technicalities
\nshould not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226?”\n<\/p>\n
It  is clear from the above decision that if there is a breach of condition of
\nthe terms of the agreement, the aggrieved person can very well  approach  this
\nCourt  to vindicate his grievance in view of the obligation on the part of the
\nmanagement to fulfil certain mandatory conditions provided in the Code.  It is
\nalso clear that Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers  wide  powers
\non the  High  Courts to issue Writs in the nature of prerogative Writs.  Writs
\ncan be issued to “any person or authority”.\n<\/p>\n
25.  In support of his contention that Article  14  does  not  apply,  learned
\nAdditional  Advocate  General  has  relied  on another decision of the Supreme
\nCourt in Lachiman Dass v.  State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court\n<\/p>\n
222.  In that decision, Their  Lordships  have  held  that  while  Article  14
\nprohibits  discriminatory legislation directed against one individual or class
\nof individuals, it does not forbid reasonable  classification,  and  for  this
\npurpose even  one  person  or  group  of  persons  can be a class.  As rightly
\nanalysed, these Matriculation Schools were in existence historically,  form  a
\nclass by itself and there is no question of applying violation of Article 14.\n<\/p>\n
26.  The other decision very much relied on by the learned Additional Advocate
\nGeneral is in  the  case  of  M\/s.  Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v.  State of
\nU.P., reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court 32.  With regard  to  the  contention
\nthat  in the absence of statutory provisions, the State cannot issue executive
\norders and control the affairs of these Matriculation Schools,  the  following
\nconclusion of Their Lordships is relevant:  (para 20)<\/p>\n
“20??.It  is  neither necessary nor possible to give an exhaustive enumeration
\nof the kinds and categories of executive functions which may comprise both the
\nformulation of the policy as well as its execution.  In other words, the State
\nin exercise  of  its  executive  power  is  charged  with  the  duty  and  the
\nresponsibility of  carrying  on  the  general administration of the State.  So
\nlong as the State Government  does  not  go  against  the  provisions  of  the
\nConstitution or any law, the width and amplitude of its executive power cannot
\nbe circumscribed.    If  there  is  no enactment covering a particular aspect,
\ncertainly  the  Government  can  carry  on  the  administration   by   issuing
\nadministrative  directions  or instructions, until the legislature makes a law
\nin that behalf.  Otherwise, the administration would come to a standstill.”\n<\/p>\n
The above view of the Supreme Court has been followed by the Division Bench of
\nthis Court in C.  Stephenson Roobasingh v.  State of  Tamil  Nadu  and  others
\n(1993 Writ L.R.  544).  In para 34, the Division Bench has held:\n<\/p>\n
“34?.The  right  of  the State Government to frame Rules in the absence of any
\nstatutory provision has been recognised beyond doubt.  It  has  been  held  in
\nM\/s.  Bishamber Dayal  Chandra  Mohan v.  State of U.P.  (AIR 1982 SC 32) that
\nif there is no enactment covering a particular aspect the Government can carry
\non the administration by issuing  administrative  directions  or  instructions
\nuntil   the  Legislature  makes  a  law  in  that  behalf,  as  otherwise  the
\nadministration would come to a standstill?..”\n<\/p>\n
27.  It is clear from the above decisions of the Supreme Court  that  even  in
\nthe absence of legislation, in view of the fact that the Matriculation Schools
\nwere  in  existence  even  prior  to  the  enactment  of  Private Schools Act,
\naffiliated and controlled by Madras and Madurai Universities, and also of  the
\nfact  that  after  constitution  of  the 8 Members Sub-Committee and after its
\nsuggestion and  acceptance  by  the  Board  of  Matriculation  Education,  the
\nGovernment,  by  exercise  of  their executive powers, have framed the Code of
\nRegulations for Matriculation Schools, the same cannot be faulted  with  until
\nthe legislature makes a law in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n
28.   In  the  light  of  what  is stated above, till the legislature brings a
\nlegislation for Matriculation  Schools  on  par  with  Tamil  Nadu  Recognised
\nPrivate  Schools  (Regulation) Act, the Government is well within their powers
\nto issue executive instructions in the form of  Government  Orders.    In  the
\nlight  of various clauses, particularly Clauses 17 to 23 in Chapter VI and VII
\nof the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools which are more exhaustive
\nand which provides for service conditions of teachers and other staff, I  hold
\nthat  the impugned Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools framed by the
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu are valid; accordingly the writ  Petition  fails  and
\nthe same is dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes
\nR.B.\n<\/p>\n
To:-\n<\/p>\n
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
\nrepresented by the Commissioner and
\nSecretary to Government,
\nEducation Department,
\nFort St.  George, Madras-9.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Director of School Education,
\nCollege Road, Madras-600006.\n<\/p>\n
P.  SATHASIVAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
Order in W.P.No.197\/93<\/p>\n
Dt:  19-07-2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Tamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 19\/07\/2002 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Writ Petition No. 197 of 1993 Tamil Nadu Matriculation and CBSE School Teachers’ Association, represented by its General Secretary, Anna Nagar, Madras-40. […]<\/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-229074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002 - 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\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-26T14:48:15+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=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-26T14:48:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":7291,\"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\\\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\",\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-26T14:48:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Tamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002 - 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\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-26T14:48:15+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":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-26T14:48:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002"},"wordCount":7291,"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\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002","name":"Tamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-26T14:48:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamil-nadu-matriculation-and-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamil Nadu Matriculation And vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002"}]},{"@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\/229074","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=229074"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229074\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}