Madras High Court
Swamy Nithyananda vs The Director Of School Education on 6 August, 2007
Author: K. Chandru
Bench: K. Chandru
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06/08/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. CHANDRU W.P.(MD) No.3241 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No.3327 of 2004 Swamy Nithyananda President, Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam Tiruparaithurai, Tiruchirapalli District. ... Petitioner Vs The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 6. ... Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned circular passed by the respondent made in Na.Ka.No.39551/PD1/2004 dated 23.06.2004 and quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Sankarasubramanian ^For Respondent ... Mr. R.Monoharan, GA :ORDER
This petition is filed against the circular issued by the Director of School Education dated 23.06.2004 wherein a common calendar has been prescribed for the year 2004-2005 to be followed by all the High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that they will not able to innovate any new system or arrangement if they are compelled to follow the common calendar and they wanted to make their own calendar as per the wishes of the management.
3. Mr.A.Sankarasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the school is established by the devotees of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and the school wants to have the special holidays on the birthdays of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Sri Swami Vivekananda and Smt.Sarada Devi. The circular does not give any scope for taking care of such of special needs of the school. He also states that by fixing definite dates for monthly tests, quarterly, half-yearly and annual examinations the school is not able to innovate new methods and to fix their own schedule for carrying on their activities.
4. However, in respect of the first submission, I am not able to agree with the learned counsel. The impugned circular provides for permission to be granted by the Chief Educational Officer in case of grant of Local holidays. If the petitioner's school wants to avail three special holidays in order to pay homage to the founders of the Sri Ramakrishna Mission they can always approach the Chief Educational Officer and seek for approval to avail those holidays and compensating those three days by working on some Saturdays. Therefore, on this ground, the circular need not be challenged.
5. Further under Rule 77 of the Tamilnadu Education Rules gives the authority to prescribe of various holidays depending upon the various denominations and Religions. The power of the Director is derived from these rules to prescribe an academic calendar and the present holidays have been arrived at by a committee comprising of the Joint Director, CEO's and experienced headmasters of high schools and higher secondary schools under the Chairmanship of the Director of School Education. Besides, grant of holidays to various types of schools the circular also provides for prior permission to avail holidays for local needs. It is clearly stated that a common circular is issued so that there is uniformity is maintained in the schools.
6. In the decision reported in Christian Medical College Hospital Employees' Union and another vs. Christian Medical College, Vellore Association and others (1987(4) SCC 691) it was held that the regulatory laws are applicable to all educational institutions irrespective of the character of the management. The following passage found in para 18 will make the position clear:- Extract:-
"Article 41 of the Constitution provides that the State shall make provision for securing right to work. Article 42 of the Constitution provides that the State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. Article 43 of the Constitution states that the state shall endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way to all workers agricultural, industrial or otherwise work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. These rights which are enforced through the several pieces of labour legislation in India have got to be applied to every workman irrespective of the character of the management. Even the management of a minority educational institution has got to respect these rights and implement them. Implementation of these rights involves the obedience to several labour laws including the Act which is under consideration in this case which are brought into force in the country. Due obedience to those laws would assist in the smooth working of the educational institutions and would facilities proper administration of such educational institutions. If such laws are made inapplicable to minority educational institutions, there is very likelihood of such institutions being subjected to mal-administration. .....
......
If a creditor of a minority educational institution or a contractor who has built the building of such institution is permitted to file a suit for recovery of the money or damages as the case may be due to him against such institution and to bring the properties of such institution to sale to realise the decretal amount due under the decree passed in such suit is Article 30(1) violated? Certainly not. Similarly the right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution is not violated, if a minority school is ordered to be closed when an epidemic breaks out in the neighbourhood, if a minority school is ordered to be closed when an epidemic breaks out in the neighbourhood, if a minority school building is ordered to be pulled down when it is constructed contrary to town planning law or if a decree for possession is passed in favour of the true owner of the land when a school is built on a land which is not owned by the management of a minority school. ...... .....
7. On the question of State's power in prescribing number of holidays came up for consideration in the decision relating to MRF Ltd., vs. Inspector, Kerala Govt. & Others vide its decision reported in 1998(8) SCC 227. While, delineating the power of the court to interfere with such a decision the Supreme Court set up the following parameters in para 13 of the said judgment:-
13. On a conspectus of various decisions of this Court, the following principles are clearly discernible:-
(1) While considering the reasonableness of the restrictions, the court has to keep in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy.
(2) Restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so as to go beyond the requirement of the interest of the general public. (3) In order to judge the reasonableness of the restrictions, no abstract or general pattern or a fixed principle can be laid down so as to be of universal application and the same will vary from case to case as also with regard to changing conditions, values of human life, social philosophy of the Constitution, prevailing conditions and the surrounding circumstances.
(4) A just balance has to be struck between the restrictions imposed and the social control envisaged by clause (6) of Article 19.
(5) Prevailing social values as also social needs which are intended to be satisfied by restrictions have to be borne in mind. (See: State of U.P. v. Kaushailiya.) (6) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection between the restrictions imposed and the object sought to be achieved. If there is a direct nexus between the restrictions and the object of the Act, then a strong presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the Act will naturally arise. (See: Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala 8 ;
O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph 9.)
8. In this regard the avernments made in para 10 of the counter affidavit dated 24.11.2004 filed by the Director of School Education is worth quoting:-
"10. It is submitted that like Tapovanam Schools, if all the Schools are allowed to have their own working hours and a list of Holidays there would be only chaotic condition in school system and the effective and uniform monitoring system by the officials would be totally affected. Government welfare schemes and quality aspects cannot reach the schools and it will further lead to deterioration in standard and quality in education in Tamilnadu. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that the circular interferes with the right of the management to declare Holidays is totally wrong. The circular only checks the abuse the power and mismanagement besides allowing the school agencies to avail Religious Holidays, Restricted Holidays and Local Holidays."
9. A common calendar for all schools does not take away any innovation made by any private schools. On the contrary in the light of various complaints that some Higher Secondary School are starting the syllabus for 12th standard in the 11th standard itself so as to score higher marks in the public examinations and completely by passing the 11th standard syllabus which is not in the interest of academic growth has come to notice of the Government. In order to check such undesirable activities on the part of some school managements such restrictions as well as prescription of an uniform academic calendar is salutary and is a must.
10. In the light of the above the writ petition is misconceived and will stand dismissed. No costs. W.P.M.P.No. 3327 of 2005 is also dismissed.
To The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 6.