{"id":27939,"date":"2011-06-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011"},"modified":"2016-05-20T18:45:52","modified_gmt":"2016-05-20T13:15:52","slug":"s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 24\/06\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURBLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN\n\nW.P(MD).No.12463 of 2009\n****\n\nS.R.M.Higher Secondary School,\nrep.by its Secretary,\nS.R.M.Chidambaram,\nNattarasankotti,\nSivagangai District.\t\t\t\t...\tPetitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Chief Educational Officer,\n  Sivagangai.\n\n2.The District Educational Officer,\n  Sivagangai.\n\n3.The Director of School Education,\n  College Road, Chennai. \t\t\t...\tRespondents\n\t\t\n\t\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\nfor the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records\nrelating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 16.11.2009 in\nNa.Ka.No.4069\/A3\/2009 and quash the same and consequently, direct the\nrespondents to sanction the petitioner's request for starting the following two\ngroups in the petitioner School and for permitting the petitioner to appoint\nadditional teachers vide representations dated 15.02.2009 and 13.03.2009.\ni.e.Group A-Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Computer Science, Group B-Physics,\nChemistry, Botany, Zoology.\n\t\t\n!For petitioner   ... Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan\n^For respondents  ... Mr.TR.Janardhanan\n\t\t      Addl.Govt.Pleader\n\t\t\t\t\t *****\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tThe Writ Petitioner School was originally a high School which was<br \/>\nlater upgraded as a higher secondary School with effect from 1985-1986.<br \/>\nAccording to them, they had ten sanctioned posts of graduate teachers and one<br \/>\npost of lab attendant and the said posts are permanent. Out of ten teaching<br \/>\nposts, the third respondent had accorded and sanctioned five posts for the<br \/>\nhigher Secondary School. The School was entitled to get the posts under<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.702, Education Department.  At that time, the petitioner School was<br \/>\nonly offering the third group alone to the students. Thereafter, the petitioner<br \/>\nSchool decided to include two more new groups in the higher secondary section,<br \/>\nas per their resolution dated 12.01.1988. Therefore, the petitioner School<br \/>\nrequested for sanction of five posts of P.G.Assistants to expand the existing<br \/>\nhigher secondary education. However, it was not considered by the respondents.<br \/>\nTherefore, he filed a Writ of Mandamus in W.P.(MD).No.8226 of 1998 seeking to<br \/>\nconsider his representation.  This Court, by order dated 19.06.1988 directed to<br \/>\nconsider the said representation within one month. Subsequently, by order dated<br \/>\n13.08.1998, the representation was returned for submission of a declaration.<br \/>\nAccordingly, on 20.11.1998, the petitioner made a declaration. However, again,<br \/>\nit was returned and the petitioner School made a further representation dated<br \/>\n11.01.1999. As no orders were passed, a contempt Petition was filed in<br \/>\nCont.P(MD).No.138 of 1999 and final orders were passed on 01.09.1998 and said<br \/>\nContempt Petition was closed on 22.03.1999. Since there was a dispute in the<br \/>\nmanagement, he has taken over the management only now. Therefore, he would<br \/>\ncontend that the earlier proceedings could not be proceeded with. Now, the<br \/>\npetitioner made a new request for starting up new two groups and also for<br \/>\nadditional teachers by his representations dated 07.06.2008, 13.12.2008,<br \/>\n05.02.2009 and 13.03.2009. This was also not considered, hence, he filed another<br \/>\nWrit Petition in W.P(MD).No.4697 of 2009 to consider the representations of the<br \/>\npetitioner dated 15.02.2009 and 13.03.2009 which was ordered by this Court on<br \/>\n12.06.2009 to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders within<br \/>\nsix weeks. However, his request was rejected. Challenging the said rejection<br \/>\norder, the present Writ Petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.\tHis main contention is that the rejection is bad, as<br \/>\noriginally the School was in existence even prior to 1990 and the School is<br \/>\nupgraded as higher secondary School even in the year 1985 and the posts are<br \/>\nsanctioned posts. Though it was not utilized, the post never ceases and the<br \/>\norder which now says that no new course stated after 1990 could be given grants<br \/>\nwill not be applicable to the petitioner School, because it was in existence<br \/>\neven prior to that and hence, the order is not legal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.\tMr.TR.Janardhanam, learned Special Government Pleader has<br \/>\nfiled a detailed counter affidavit stating that when the permission was granted<br \/>\nto open science groups at that time of opening higher secondary School, the<br \/>\nSchool had started only the third group in 1985 and 1986.  As they have not<br \/>\nstarted the science group, the  other five posts were taken up and distributed<br \/>\nto the needy Schools.  In fact, as early as 12.01.2008, when a request was made<br \/>\nto open two more groups, it was negatived by the Government.  When the request<br \/>\nfor starting new course has been negatived as early as on 12.01.2008, there was<br \/>\nno question of granting of additional five posts and therefore, the impugned<br \/>\norder was passed correctly.  In fact, in the earlier Writ Petition in<br \/>\nW.P(MD).No.8286 of 1998, when the request of the management was sought to<br \/>\nconsider and after the Court order, a declaration was insisted from the<br \/>\npetitioner School to the effect that at no point of time the post with grant<br \/>\nwill be claimed. Since they did not file the undertaking, the request of the<br \/>\npetitioner School was rejected. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.525 Education dated<br \/>\n29.12.1997, the request of the School cannot be considered and it could be<br \/>\nconsidered only on the basis of self financing pattern. As the petitioners have<br \/>\nallowed the posts to lapse, after a long gap, they cannot now be permitted to<br \/>\nrevive the same.  Any posts especially after G.O.Ms.No.525, Education, dated<br \/>\n29.12.1987 and the amendment to the section and also in view of the fact that<br \/>\nwhen the department has not permitted to open any additional group, the impugned<br \/>\norder not permitting the petitioner School to allow any additional posts is well<br \/>\nwithin the competence of the respondents.  The original five sanctioned posts<br \/>\nwere not utilised by the petitioner School within the time limit and after<br \/>\nseveral years, the request to start for additional groups and sanction<br \/>\nadditional teacher posts on that basis cannot be considered at this point of<br \/>\ntime. Therefore, the request of the School after 23 years cannot be revived.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.\tThe petitioner has also replied to the counter stating that<br \/>\nthe posts which was originally sanctioned was never taken up by the respondents.<br \/>\nThey would also contend that even though an undertaking that no infrastructure<br \/>\nwould be demanded was given as early as on 20.11.1998, they have not given any<br \/>\nundertaking as regards the sanctioned posts.  They would now contend that they<br \/>\nhave started the School earlier and any request has to be considered on the<br \/>\nprevailing conditions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tHeard both parties.  By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken<br \/>\nup for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.\tThe only request of the petitioner is that the petitioner<br \/>\nSchool which was started long back and later upgraded in the year 1985 had<br \/>\noriginally  ten sanctioned posts.  But when they started the higher secondary<br \/>\nSchool since they had only the third group, they have availed initially five<br \/>\nposts alone.  The remaining five posts though not availed at that time as it is<br \/>\na permanent sanction posts they could avail this post at any time when the<br \/>\nrequirement is necessary is the main contention of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.\tThey would also contend that after a period of twenty years<br \/>\nwhen they wanted to expand and use additional classes, they sought permission to<br \/>\nhave the course sought the post which was originally there but not utilised till<br \/>\nthen.  Since the representation was not considered, earlier round of litigations<br \/>\nwere there, but ultimately the request of the petitioner was rejected on the<br \/>\nground that;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;jkpH;ehL mA;fPfhpf;fg;gl;l jdpahh; gs;spfs; XGA;F gLj;Jjy; rl;lk; 1973<br \/>\ntpjp 14-V-(o)d;go 1991-92 fy;tpahz;L Kjy; g[jpajhfj; bjhlA;fg;gLk;<br \/>\nghlg;gphpt[fSk; khd;ak; mspf;f tpjpfspy; nlkpy;iy. Raepjp mog;gilapy; kl;LBk<br \/>\ng[[jpa ghlg;gphpt[ JtA;f mDkjpaspf;f naYk; vd;w tptuk; b;jhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.&#8221;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.\tAs per the Tamil Nadu Private School Regulations Act 14(a)(d)<br \/>\nany class or course which was started after the academic year 1991-1992 will not<br \/>\nbe eligible for any grant and those courses or classes of the Schools could be<br \/>\nonly opened under the self-financing scheme.  In this connection, they would<br \/>\nonly contend that even though the School was opened and upgraded even in the<br \/>\nyear 1985 the present courses which is now sought to be opened was not available<br \/>\nin the School in the academic year 1991 and 1992 and for the first time, they<br \/>\nsought permission to open the concerned class or course, that too, only in the<br \/>\nyear 1998.  It is also pointed out even though 10 posts were available in the<br \/>\nyear 1985, only five posts were utilised, thereafter, till 2008, it was never<br \/>\nutilised. In fact, in the year 2008, the request for sanction of new posts with<br \/>\npermission to start new course or class having been rejected, it is not open to<br \/>\nthe petitioner at this point of time to seek additional posts.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.\tFor better appreciation of facts, Rule 14-A of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nRecognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act,1973, is usefully extracted below:-\n<\/p>\n<p>14-A. Grant not payable to new private Schools and new class and course of<br \/>\ninstruction:-  Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other<br \/>\nlaw for the time being in force in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or<br \/>\nother authority, no grant shall be paid to-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) any private School established and any class or course of instruction opened<br \/>\nin such private School, on or after the date of commencement of the academic<br \/>\nyear 1991-1992.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) any private School in existence on the date of commencement of the academic<br \/>\nyear 1991-1992 to which no grant has been paid by the Government immediately<br \/>\nbefore the date of such commencement;\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) any class or course of instruction in a private School in existence on the<br \/>\ndate of commencement of the academic year 1991-1992 to which no grant has been<br \/>\npaid by the Government immediately before the date of such commencement; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(d) any class or course of instruction opened on or after the date of<br \/>\ncommencement of the academic year 1991-1992 in a private School in existence on<br \/>\nthe date of such commencement&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.\tSpecifically, clause (c) would clearly state that any clause<br \/>\nor instruction in a private School is in existence on the date of commencement<br \/>\nof the academic year 1991-1992 to which no grant has been paid by the Government<br \/>\nimmediately before the date of such commencement, then they are not eligible.<br \/>\nHere, on the date, namely, in the year 1985 when the sanctioned posts were 10,<br \/>\nbut they utilised only five posts and in 1991-1992, this additional courses were<br \/>\nnot available.  First time, they ask for only in the year 1988 and even in the<br \/>\nyear 2008, the request was rejected.  Therefore, the School which is not having<br \/>\nthe course or class in the academic year 1991-1992 cannot seek any grant now,<br \/>\neven though originally, they had enjoyed the same.  Unfortunately, as per the<br \/>\ncounter, since the grant was not utilised, the other five posts which was<br \/>\navailable to the School has been given to the other needy School, which has not<br \/>\nbeen challenged in the court of law.  Even though on the earlier occasions the<br \/>\npetitioner School had filed a Writ Petition for some other purpose, taking up of<br \/>\nthe posts from the petitioner School was not challenged till today.  No doubt,<br \/>\nthe petitioner has raised a plea taking up of the post is arbitrary without<br \/>\nnotice, but that has not been challenged before the Court of law.  Even if we<br \/>\ntake into consideration G.O.Ms.No.525 School education department dated<br \/>\n29.12.1997, the sanction for additional posts would be considered will be<br \/>\napplicable only to Schools or courses which were recognised upto 1991.  The<br \/>\nlearned counsel wanted to rely upon this ground that the words used that Schools<br \/>\nestablished and any class or course of instruction opened in such a private<br \/>\nSchool on or after 1991-1992, contends that this School was in existence way<br \/>\nback in the year 1985. Hence, they would be eligible for the additional posts.<br \/>\nUnfortunately, we will have to take into consideration that in the year 1997<br \/>\nthose Schools which was in existence already were given for two additional posts<br \/>\nin respect of the classes also. This has not been done so by the petitioner<br \/>\nSchool. Whereas, after the amendment to the act, it is very clear that including<br \/>\nany class or course cannot be included unless the same has been in existence on<br \/>\nthe crucial date.  Here, they only started a new course after 1991 and that is<br \/>\nwhy, the respondents have rightly negatived the request of the petitioner.<br \/>\nTherefore, the impugned order passed by the authority  concerned is valid and<br \/>\ncorrect and I do not find any reason with the reasoned order and the Writ<br \/>\nPetition is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>ssm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Chief Educational Officer,<br \/>\n  Sivagangai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Educational Officer,<br \/>\n  Sivagangai.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Director of School Education,<br \/>\n  College Road, Chennai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24\/06\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURBLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P(MD).No.12463 of 2009 **** S.R.M.Higher Secondary School, rep.by its Secretary, S.R.M.Chidambaram, Nattarasankotti, Sivagangai District. &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai. 2.The District Educational [&hellip;]<\/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-27939","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-20T13:15:52+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-20T13:15:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1965,\"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\\\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011\",\"name\":\"S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-20T13:15:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-20T13:15:52+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-20T13:15:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011"},"wordCount":1965,"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\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011","name":"S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-20T13:15:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-m-higher-secondary-school-vs-the-chief-educational-officer-on-24-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.R.M.Higher Secondary School vs The Chief Educational Officer on 24 June, 2011"}]},{"@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\/27939","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=27939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27939\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}