{"id":250222,"date":"2006-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006"},"modified":"2018-08-22T23:39:06","modified_gmt":"2018-08-22T18:09:06","slug":"the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Correspondent vs The District Elementary … on 4 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Correspondent vs The District Elementary … on 4 July, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 04\/07\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN\n\n\nW.P.(MD)Nos.2064 of 2004\nW.P.(MD)Nos.2028 of 2004\nand\nW.P.M.P.(MD)No.2090 of 2004\n\n\n1.The Correspondent\n  Sacred Heart Primary School\n  Kamaraj Nagar, Padanthalumoodu\n  Kanyakumari District-629 194.\n\n\t\t\t       \t... Petitioner in W.P.No.2028 of 2004\n\n2.The Correspondent,\n  Holy Family Primary School,\n  Arukany & Post -629 101\n  Kanyakumari District.\n\n\t\t\t     \t... Petitioner in W.P.No.2064 of 2004\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n1.The District Elementary Educational Officer,\n  Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil,\n  Kanyakumari District - 629 001.\n\n\t\t\t\t... 1st Respondent in both the W.Ps.\n\n\n2.The Additional Assistant Elementary\n  Educational Officer,\n  Munchirai, Kanyakumari District - 629 171.\t\t\t\n\n3.The Secretary,\n  Government of Tamil Nadu,\n  Department of School Education,\n  Fort Saint George,\n  Chennai-9\n\n4.The Director of Elementary Education,\n  College Road,\n  Chennai-6\n (The respondents 3 & 4 added as per order\n  of this Court dated 04.01.2006 made in\n  W.P.No.2028 of 2004 by A.K.J-S.K.K.J)\n\n\t\t\t\t... Respondents 2-4 in  W.P.No.2028 of 2004\n\n\n5.The Additional Assistant Elementary\n  Educational Officer,\n  Kuzhithurai,\n  Kanyakumari District.\n\t\t\t   ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.2064 of 2004\n\nPRAYER in W.P.No.2028 of 2004: Writ Petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the\nConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling\nfor the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent District\nElementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil in Na.Ka.No.3723\/A3\/2004 dated\n31.08.2004 settling the Staff Fixation for the petitioner-school for the year\n2004-2005, quash the same in so far as it renders one post of Secondary Grade\nTeacher as surplus.\n\nPRAYER in W.P.No.2064 of 2004: Writ Petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the\nConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling\nfor the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent District\nElementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil in Na.Ka.No.3723\/A3\/2004 dated\n31.08.2004 settling the Staff Fixation for the petitioner-school for the year\n2004-2005 and the consequent proceedings of the second respondent AAEEO,\nKuzhithurai in Na.Ka.No.2170\/E04 dated 23.09.2004, quash the same in so far as\nit renders three posts of Secondary Grade Teachers as surplus.\n\n\n!For Petitioners   \t...\tMr.Issac Mohanlal\n\n\n^For Respondents \t...\tMr.R.Janakiramulu\n\t\t\t\tGovernment Pleader.\n\t\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
(Order of the Court was delivered by
\nJustice.F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA)<\/p>\n
\t\tIn W.P.No.2028 of 2004, the petitioner seeks for the issuance of
\nWrit of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the
\n1st respondent District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil in
\nNa.Ka.No.3723\/A3\/2004 dated 31.08.2004 settling the Staff Fixation for the
\npetitioner-school for the year 2004-2005, quash the same in so far as it renders
\none post of Secondary Grade Teacher as surplus.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. In W.P.No0.2064 of 2004, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a
\nWrit of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the
\n1st respondent District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil in
\nNa.Ka.No.3723\/A3\/2004 dated 31.08.2004 settling the Staff Fixation for the
\npetitioner-school for the year 2004-2005 and the consequential proceedings of
\nthe second respondent AAEEO, Kuzhithurai in Na.Ka.No.2170\/E04 dated 23.09.2004,
\nquash the same in so far as it renders three posts of Secondary Grade Teachers
\nas surplus.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. W.P.No.2028 of 2004 was admitted by the learned single Judge on
\n06.10.2004 and in W.P.M.P.No.2090 of 2004  interim stay of the impugned order
\nwas granted on 18.10.2004 while directing the writ petition itself to be posted
\nfor final disposal on 08.07.2004.  Subsequently, when the writ petition came
\nbefore the learned single Judge on 16.12.2005, the learned single Judge
\nconsidering the importance of the question involved,  directed the Registry to
\npost the writ petition before the Division Bench for final disposal.
\nThereafter, on 04.01.2006, the Division Bench thought it fit to implead
\nrespondents 4 and 5 as parties to the Writ petition in W.P.No.2028 of 2004 by
\npassing suo motu orders.  That is how the writ petitions came up for final
\ndisposal before this Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. Briefly the  facts which are required to be stated are, that both
\nthe petitioners are primary schools run by recognised and aided minority
\ninstitutions.  It is stated to be owned and administered by the Trust of the
\nDiocese of Thuckalay.  The correspondent of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Schools is
\nthe Correspondent of all the 9 schools under the Diocese of Thuckalay in
\nKanyakumari District.  The petitioner school in W.P.No.2028 of 2004 was stated
\nto have been established in the year 1978.  The other school run by the
\npetitioner in W.P.No.2064 of 2004 was stated to have been established in the
\nyear 1969 itself.  Both the schools offered education from standards I to V and
\nit is claimed that mostly the children of farm workers, rubber tapers, and
\ncoolies collecting forest produce are studying in the schools and thus catering
\nto the needs of rural mass.  It is also claimed that both the schools provide
\neducation free of cost except collecting a small sum specified by the State
\nGovernment and that admission is open to all irrespective of caste, creed or
\nreligion.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. The issue relating to staff fixation  is governed by the revised
\nnorms announced by the Government of Tamil Nadu based on the teacher-student
\nratio under G.O.Ms.No.525(School Education) dated 29.12.1997 with effect from
\n01.06.1998.  The norms relating to elementary schools as prescribed in the
\nGovernment order is as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tI.Elementary School (Standards I to V)\n<\/p>\n
\ta) 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
\tb) 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
\tc) 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\t6. The above referred to Government Order was the subject matter of
\nchallenge in a batch of writ petitions and writ appeals which was covered by a
\ncommon order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 09.11.2000 in Writ Appeals
\nNos.1768 of 1998 etc. Paragraph 29 and 30 of the Division Bench order is to the
\nfollowing effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t“29.The contention that the prescription of 1:40 and the second teacher at
\n80 is, according to them, unworkable and impossible.  The Government Order
\nstates as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The teachers-pupil ratio of 1:40 will be followed.  Minimum of 2
\nSecondary Grade teachers up to a strength of 80 will be sanctioned.  For every
\nadditional strength of 40, one post of Secondary Grade teacher will be
\nsanctioned, i.e., the third post at 100, the fourth post at 140, the firth post
\nat 180 and so on.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn an additional Counter Affidavit dated 21.07.2000 filed on behalf of the
\nrespondent’s, it is stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is the policy of the Government that there shall not be a single
\nteacher school in the State.  As far as elementary and middle schools are
\nconcerned, the minimum strength of 20 pupils is considered as economic strength.
\nHowever, from the average attendance of 290 and above and up to 80, two teacher
\nposts are eligible.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is further submitted that in the process of re-deployment of surplus
\nteachers to the needy schools along with the posts held by them, the respondents
\nwill take steps to transfer surplus teachers from Non-Minority schools to needy
\nNon-Minority schools and as well as from Minority schools to Minority schools as
\nfar as possible after getting consent from the concerned management to avoid
\nretrenchment of surplus teachers”.\n<\/p>\n
\t30.It is further stated by the Special Government Pleader that there will
\nbe a minimum of one teacher for 40 pupils and that there will be two teachers
\nexceeding 40 up to 80 and that there will be three teachers exceeding 80 up to
\n100 and thereafter in the slab of 40 pupils per teacher i.e., when the school
\ngets the 41st pupil, the school is eligible to get a second teacher post and not
\nat 79 as argued.  Similarly, at 81 it is entitled for a third teacher up to 100
\nand thereafter for a slab of 40 pupils.  Therefore, the grievance of the
\nappellants that there will be one teacher up to 79 students cannot be sustained.
\nThe primary schools have got standards up to V i.e, minimum of five standards.
\nThe average attendance of all the standards I to V are taken together for the
\npurpose of sanctioning the posts.  That means, even if in some standards the
\nstudent  strength is less than 40, an average will be taken and posts are
\nsanctioned accordingly.  The projection made by some of the appellants is as
\nthough they are dealing with single teacher schools which are very rare and as a
\npolicy the Government has decided to have a minimum of two teachers for every
\nschool.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7.Subsequently, at the instance of the State Government a
\nclarification was sought for in W.A.M.P.No.5667 of 2003 in W.A.No.1768 of 1998
\nand the Division Bench by its order dated 12.05.2004 has held in Paragraph 11 as
\nunder:\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’ is at 80,
\nsecond teacher’s post will be sanctioned and like wise when the strength is at
\n100, third teacher’s post will be sanctioned and the 4th teacher’s post at 140
\nand fifth teacher’s post at 180 and so on.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. Again  in paragraph 13, the Division Bench stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“13. In the result, paragraph 30 of the judgment is clarified as referred
\nin para 11 above.  If the appellants have got any difficulty in teacher 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\t9. The petitioner, therefore, contended that according to the norms
\nprescribed in G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997, the school is eligible for 5
\nsecondary grade teachers on the basis of standard wise strength as well as the
\ntotal strength and the act of the first respondent in fixing the eligibility as
\nfour secondary grade teachers in W.P.No.2028 of 2004 and only 5 secondary grade
\nteachers in W.P.No.2064 of 2004 therein is not in consonance with the Government
\nOrder itself and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
\nby making a detailed reference to the Government Order as extracted above
\ncontended that even accepting the prescription of teacher-pupil ratio at 1:40 it
\nwill have to be held that such ratio should be related to each standard for
\nwhich education is provided in the elementary school and it cannot be related to
\nthe total student strength irrespective of the various standards for which
\neducation is provided in the school. According to the learned counsel, the
\napplication of the ratio of 1:40 by the respondents with reference to the total
\nnumber of students studying in all the standards put together and dividing the
\nsame by 40 would make the fixation of norms as an illusory one and will not
\nserve the purpose for which the State Government came forward to provide the
\nrequired number of teachers in each school.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11. The Learned counsel would state that the prescription in clause
\nI(a) of the G.O. to the effect “in respect of new schools, first post will be
\ncreated in the first year and second post in the second year. One of the two
\nposts will be in the grade of Headmaster” would show that in a new school while
\nin the first year the school may start with the first standard while in the next
\nyear there has to be necessarily the starting of the second standard by virtue
\nof the Ist standard student getting promoted to the IInd standard and thereby
\nthe requirement of the second teacher arising in the second year.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12. The learned counsel would further state that the ratio of 1:40
\nshould be maintained in consonance with the students strength in each standard
\nreaching the level of 40 and for every additional strength of 40 in each
\nstandard the sanction of additional posts shall be made subject to the
\nstipulation contained in Clause I(a).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13. On the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, we
\nheard the learned Government Pleader Mr.Janaki Ramulu, who on the other hand
\ncontended that the ratio prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997 is
\nreferable only to the total strength of the school and the contention to the
\ncontrary made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
\nthe learned Government Pleader we find force in the submissions made by the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner.  When we test the argument put forth on
\nbehalf of the petitioner, we find that if the stand of the respondents is to be
\naccepted, in a school where standard I to V exist and the total student strength
\nremain at 143, sanction of two teachers for first 80, one other teacher for the
\nstrength of 100 and another teacher for the next 40 namely 140 would result in
\nthe total sanction of only four teachers, eventhough, the existence of 5
\nstandards namely standards I to V would mandatorily require the sanction  of a
\nfifth teacher to handle all the five standards in the school.  Such a position
\nwould be highly incongruous and if the prescription of ratio provided under
\nG.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 is to be construed and inplemented in the said
\nmanner that would work against the interest of the pupil and the school and the
\nvery object of promotion of education will be defeated.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15. In other words, if there are five standards namely standards I
\nto V  in an elementary school with the economic strength of not less than 20 in
\neach standard, and each standard reaching 40 or 80 or 100 or 140 or 180 as the
\ncase may be, the fixation of the teacher pupil 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 school there exists standard  I to V and in each
\nstandard the students strength is not less than 60, the bifurcation of standards
\nas prescribed under clause I(c) will have to be made and the required teacher-
\npupil ratio at the rate of 1:40 with a minimum of two secondary grade teachers
\nupto a strength of 80 for each standard will have to be maintained.  If the
\nratio as prescribed in the G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 is not applied in the
\nabove said manner, that would result in total lack of required number of
\nteachers to man the minimum number of pupils in each standard, which would
\nultimately result in great fall in the standard of education and such a position
\ncan never be acknowledged or accepted as claimed by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16. It is a well known canon of construction that while interpreting
\na provision of a statute or for that matter even a statutory notification, the
\npurposive interpretation should be made and a interpretation which would defeat
\nthe purpose should never be the rule.  It is also the cardinal rule of
\nconstruction of statutes to read the statute and give effect to the words used
\ntherein, the ordinary, the natural and grammatical meaning and if by any chance
\nof such a reading leads to an ambiguity and the words are susceptible of another
\nmeaning, the meaning that would fulfil the purport of the legislation should be
\nmade.  We are of the view that the interpretation which we have placed on the
\nreading of clause I (a to c) of G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 would alone serve
\nthe purpose for which the norms came to be fixed and while giving such a reading
\nto the above referred to clauses., ambiguity if any gets ironed out and the
\nobject and purport of the notification gets fulfilled.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17.In this context, it will be worthwhile to refer to the decisions
\nwherein the rule in Heydon’s case, which is also known as ‘purposive
\nconstruction’ or “mischief rule” has been succinctly set out.  In the earliest
\ndecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1955 SC 661 (Bengal
\nImmunity Co.  v. State of Bihar and others<\/a>), in paragraph 22 the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt set out the principle in Heydon’s case which reads as under.
\n\t“(22) It is a sound rule of construction of a statute firmly established
\nin England as far back as 1584 when – ‘Heydon’s case’, (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a (V)
\nwas decided that–\n<\/p>\n
\t“….for the sure and true interpretation of all Statutes in general (be
\nthey penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law) four
\nthings are to be discerned and considered:\n<\/p>\n
\t1st. What was the common law before the making of the Act.
\n\t2nd. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not
\nprovide.\n<\/p>\n
\t3rd. What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the
\ndisease of the Commonwealth, and
\n\t4th. The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the judges
\nis always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance
\nthe remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of
\nthe mischief, and ‘pro privato commodo’, and to add force and life to the cure
\nand remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, ‘pro bono
\npublico'”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn a subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in
\nAIR 1957 SC 832 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal  vs.
\nSodra Devi<\/a>), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated as under in paragraph 14.
\n\t“14. …. It is only when the words used are ambiguous that they would
\nstand to be examined and construed in the light of surrounding circumstances and
\nconstitutional principle and practice (Per Lord Ashbourne in Nairn  v.
\nUniversity of St.Andrews, 1909 A.C.147 (B).  in the latter event the following
\nobservations of Lord Lindley M.R., in Thomson  v. Lord Clanmorris, 1900-1 Ch 718
\nat p.725 , would be apposite:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“In construing any statutory enactment, regard must be had not only
\nto the words used but to the history of the Act and the reason, which led to its
\nbeing passed.  You must look at the mischief which had to be cured as well as at
\nthe cure provided” (See also the observations of Goddard C.J., in R. v.
\nPaddington and St.Maryleborne Rent Tribunal<\/a>. (1949) 65 T L R 200 at p. 203(D).
\n….”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn an English decision reported in (1985) 2 All ER 355, the very
\nsame rule has been succinctly set out by   Lord Rokill in the following words:
\n\t“It is, therefore, important that the question of construction should be
\napproached by reference to well-known principles ignoring that which is
\nirrelevant however interesting, but remembering that statutes should be given
\nwhat has become known as a purposive construction, that is to say that the
\ncourts should where possible identify ‘the mischief’ which existed before the
\npassing of the statute and then if more than one construction is possible,
\nfavour that which will eliminate ‘the mischief’ so identified.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR
\n2003 SC 2502 (D.Saibaba  vs.  Bar Council of India and another<\/a>), the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court has held as under in paragraphs 9, 18 and 19.
\n\t“9. … Where the law provides a remedy to a person, the provision has to
\nbe so construed in case of ambiguity as to make the availing of the remedy
\npractical and the exercise of power conferred on the authority meaningful and
\neffective.  A construction which would render the provision nugatory ought to be
\navoided.  True, the process of interpretation cannot be utilized for implanting
\na heart into a dead provision; however, the power to construe a provision of law
\ncan always be so exercised as to give throb to a sinking heart.  ………
\n(Emphasis added)<\/p>\n
\t18.Reading word for word and assigning a literal meaning to Section 48AA
\nwould lead to absurdity, futility and to such consequences as the Parliament
\ncould have never intended.  The provision has an ambiguity and is capable of
\nbeing read in more ways than one.  We must, therefore, assign the provision a
\nmeaning -and so read it– as would give life to an otherwise lifeless letter and
\nenable the power of review conferred thereby being meaningfully availed and
\neffectively exercised. (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n
\t19.On the same principle the provision has to be interpreted from the
\npoint of view of exercise of the power by the Bar Council.  The interpretation
\nought to be directed to wards giving the expression a meaning which will carry
\nout the purpose of the provision and make the remedy of review conferred by the
\nprovision meaningful, practical and effective. ……”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn yet another decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976 SC
\n331 (Nasiruddin  vs. S.T.A.Tribunal<\/a>), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
\nunder in paragraph 26.\n<\/p>\n
\t“26….. If there are two different interpretations of the words in an
\nAct, the court will adopt that which is just reasonable and sensible rather than
\nthat which is none of those things. …”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18. In other words, a plain reading of the language of clause I(a to\n<\/p>\n
c) would only result in an interpretation as has been placed by us in paras 14
\nand 15 and we are convinced that the manner in which it was sought to be
\ninterpreted by the first respondent while passing the order impugned in these
\nwrit petitions would result in an unworkable or to put it bluntly chaotic
\nsituation in the Educational Institutions which cannot be permitted to be made.
\nWe therefore hold that the norms applied by the respondents under the impugned
\norder passed on the total strength of the pupils in the school without
\nparticular reference to the student strength in each of the standard I to V
\nwould defeat and frustrate the very purpose of the fixation of the ratio and the
\ncorresponding number of posts to be ascertained and consequently, the impugned
\norders are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18. Therefore, while setting aside the orders impugned in the writ
\npetitions we direct the first and second respondents to apply the ratio
\nprescribed in   Clause I(a to c) of G.O.Ms.No.525 dated 29.12.1997 in the manner
\nset out in paras 14 and 15 and fix the total number of posts for the school for
\nthe academic year 2004-2005 and for the subsequent years and pass appropriate
\norders.  The writ petitions are allowed with the above directions. No costs.
\nConsequently, connected W.P.M.P., is closed.\n<\/p>\n
sms\/gb.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
\n  Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil,
\n  Kanyakumari District – 629 001.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Additional Assistant Elementary
\n  Educational Officer,
\n  Munchirai, Kanyakumari District – 629 171.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Secretary,
\n  Government of Tamil Nadu,
\n  Department of School Education,
\n  Fort Saint George,
\n  Chennai-9<\/p>\n
4.The Director of Elementary Education,
\n  College Road,
\n  Chennai-6<\/p>\n
5.The Additional Assistant Elementary
\n  Educational Officer,
\n  Kuzhithurai,
\n  Kanyakumari District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Correspondent vs The District Elementary … on 4 July, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04\/07\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN W.P.(MD)Nos.2064 of 2004 W.P.(MD)Nos.2028 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.(MD)No.2090 of 2004 1.The Correspondent Sacred Heart Primary School Kamaraj Nagar, […]<\/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-250222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Correspondent vs The District Elementary ... on 4 July, 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\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Correspondent vs The District Elementary ... on 4 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-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=\"2006-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-22T18:09:06+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\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Correspondent vs The District Elementary … on 4 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T18:09:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3494,\"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\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006\",\"name\":\"The Correspondent vs The District Elementary ... on 4 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-22T18:09:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Correspondent vs The District Elementary … on 4 July, 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":"The Correspondent vs The District Elementary ... on 4 July, 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\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Correspondent vs The District Elementary ... on 4 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-22T18:09:06+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\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Correspondent vs The District Elementary … on 4 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T18:09:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006"},"wordCount":3494,"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\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006","name":"The Correspondent vs The District Elementary ... on 4 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-22T18:09:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-district-elementary-on-4-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Correspondent vs The District Elementary … on 4 July, 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\/250222","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=250222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250222\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}