Madras High Court
A.Kathiresan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 July, 2015
Bench: S.Manikumar, G.Chockalingam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 31.07.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
W.A.(MD).No.707 of 2015 and W.P.(MD).No.10434 of 2015 &
M.P.(MD).Nos.1, 1 and 2 of 2015
W.A.(MD).No.707 of 2015
A.Kathiresan .. Appellant
Versus
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Director,
Directorate of Matriculation Schools,
DPI Complex, Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Madurai District,
Office of the Chief Educational Officer,
Tallakulam, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools,
Office of the Inspector of Matriculation School,
Tallakulam, Madurai.
5.The Correspondent,
E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School,
Moondrumavadi, K.Pudur, Madurai-7.
6.The Principal,
E.B.G.Matriculation Higher Secondary School,
Moondrumavadi, K.Pudur, Madurai-7. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the
order dated 26.06.2015, made in W.P.(MD).No.9433 of 2015.
!For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
for M/s.R.Alagumani
^For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan,
Special Government Pleader
For 5th Respondent : Mr.S.Srinivasaraghavan
For 6th Respondent : Mr.Rozario
W.P.(MD).No.10434 of 2015
Premalatha .. Petitioner
(Substituted vide order, dated 29.06.2015
in M.P(MD).No.2/2015)
Versus
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Director,
Directorate of Matriculation Schools,
DPI Complex, Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Madurai District,
Office of the Chief Educational Officer,
Tallakulam, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools,
Office of the Inspector of Matriculation School,
Tallakulam, Madurai.
5.The Correspondent,
E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School,
Moondrumavadi, K.Pudur, Madurai-7.
6.The Principal,
E.B.G.Matriculation Higher Secondary School,
Moondrumavadi, K.Pudur, Madurai-7. .. Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the
impugned order dated 04.06.2015 on the file of the respondent No.6 and the
same was communicated to the respondent 4 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents 4 to 6 to admit the petitioner's daughter
in the respondent No.6 school within the time period stipulated by this
Court, since the respondent No.6 is denying admission to the petitioner's
daughter by name K.Keerthana in Class 11th Bio-Maths Group in the academic
year 2015-2016.
For petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan,
Special Government Pleader
For 5th Respondent : Mr.S.Srinivasaraghavan
For 6th Respondent : Mr.Rozario
:COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR,J.) In W.P.(MD).No.9433 of 2015, the petitioner, Mr.A.Kathiresan, has contended that his three daughters, were studying in E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur, Madurai, right from L.K.G. First daughter has passed out +2 in the year 2014. Second daughter, K.Subashini, student of standard X, has secured 489 marks out of 500, in the Public Examination conducted in the year 2014-15. The details are, 94 marks in Tamil, 98 marks in English, 98 marks in Mathematics, 99 marks in Science and 100 marks out of 100 marks in Social Science. Third daughter is studying in standard VIII. After Xth results were published, he submitted an application of K.Subashini for admission to XI standard, Bio-Maths group. Though G.O.Ms.No.126, School Education (V) Department, dated 11.06.2007, stipulates that admission of a student from X to XI standard, within the same school, should not be treated as fresh admission, but only as a continuation of the original admission done at the school and further stipulates that no admission should be conducted by the schools for their own students, petitioner's daughter was denied admission in standard XI. Though several requests were made by the petitioner, as well as his daughter, admission to standard XI was not given. Petitioner has further submitted that one more student, by name K.Keerthana, daughter of S.Kumarasamy, who has also secured high marks in SSLC Public Examination, was denied admission. In W.P.No.10434 of 2015, minor K.Keerthana, is represented by her mother, Premalatha.
2. In W.P.(MD).No.9433 of 2015, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the Principal, E.B.G.Matriculation Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur, Madurai, dated 04.06.2015, communicated to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai. Reasons assigned by the E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School are that there is no sufficient infrastructure, and that the above said students are not selected, by the Selection Committee. In the supporting affidavit to abovesaid writ petition, he has further contended that the real reason for denying admission to his daughter, K.Subashini, is that, he and the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10434 of 2015, S.Murugesan, uncle of K.Keerthana, are the Joint Secretary and Secretary respectively, of E.B.G. Matric Palli Manavala Petror Sangam and that they made complaints to the educational authorities against the demand and collection of excess fees, by the School, than the fee determined by the Private Schools Fees Determination Committee. They also pointed out to the educational authorities that teachers and management have harassed the students and on many occasions, there was quarrel between the parents and teachers. Before the Writ Court, averments have also been made that the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, has sent a letter in Na.Ka.No.13789/A4/2014, dated 10.12.2014, to the Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai, stating that the School has refunded the excess fee collected from the students and accordingly, a huge sum of Rs.30,32,000/- collected from the students, studying in L.K.G. to XII standard, was repaid by E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur, Madurai. Because of the action of the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Sangam, the school was aggrieved. The petitioner has further submitted that the reasons assigned in the communication dated 04.06.2015, addressed to the Inspector of Matriculation of Schools, Madurai, that there is no infrastructure and that the names of the students did not find place in the selection list, are made only for the purpose of denying admission; they are not the real, and bonafide, but the Management has victimised the students, for the act of the Office Bearers of the E.B.G. Matric Palli Manavala Petror Sangam.
3. Before the Writ Court, the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Madurai, in his counter affidavit, has stated that E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur, Madurai, is a recognized private Matriculation School. He has admitted that A.Kathiresan's daughter, namely Subashini, has secured 489 out of 500, which is a remarkable achievement. He has also stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.126, School Education (V) Department, dated 16.06.2007 issued in terms of the order of the Principal Bench of this High Court, in W.P.No.19834 of 2007, all the students of the same school qualified in Class X Board examination should be given preference, for accommodation in XI standard, while considering the students who have passed Xth standard in other schools.
4. In addition to the above, admission procedure, for class XI, should be based only on merit and in a transparent manner, in respect of Matriculation Schools. During the academic year 2014-2015, 39 students were admitted in Bio-Computer Science Group, 51 students in Bio-Maths Group and 30 students in Accountancy group. The Teacher Student ratio fixed by the Gvernment in G.O.Ms.No.155 is, 1:40 i.e., one teacher for 40 students. If a school has admitted more than 40 students in a particular group in Standard XI, then, the said school could admit 80 students, in the same group, for Standard XI. During the current academic year i.e. 2015-2016, the school has admitted only 50 students in Bio-Maths Group. In the previous academic year, 51 students were admitted in Bio-Maths group. There was no impediment on the part of E.B.G. Matriculation School, K.Pudur, Madurai to give admission to K.Subashini and one K.Keerthana, in Standard XI (Bio-Maths Group). Inspector of Matriculation Schools, has further submitted that vide proceedings dated 04.06.2015, the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, has also directed the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Madurai, to take suitable steps for admission of K.Subashini and K.Keerthana, in standard XI, in E.B.G. Matriculation Schools, K.Pudur, Madurai. Inspector of Matriculation School, in his counter affidavit, has further added that the student, K.Subashini deserves to be admitted in XI standard in the said School. He has also stated that wishes of the said budding student to have higher education in the above said school should not be nipped at the bud, due to the apathy, on the part of the school. He has also submitted that the reasons of insubordination to the teachers and lack of discipline attributed to the student, K.Subashini, cannot be appreciated. According to him, denial of admission, was due to clear motive.
5. Sister Helan, on behalf of E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, in her counter affidavit has stated that merely because K.Subashini has secured higher marks, in Standard X, admission to standard XI, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. According to the School, admission is done, after ascertaining and ensuring, discipline and dignity of the students, in addition to the academic qualification and subject to availability of seats. School has further contended that admission in a school, is not a legal right, much less, a fundamental right and further contended that an educational institution has every right to deny admission to students, on various grounds, including insubordination, indiscipline and high handed activities. An educational institution has every right to uphold its moral values. School has denied the allegation that admission to the students was denied, on the grounds that their parents had approached the educational authorities. School has further contended that no doubt, K.Subashini has secured good marks and one of the top scorers in Xth standard Board examinations, but she has not maintained good conduct, decent behaviour, obedience towards teachers, elders, discipline in the classroom activities, and compassion towards co-students. The school has received lot of complaints against the students from teachers and non-teaching staff, with specific incidents of indiscipline, disobedience and dis-respect, the petitioner's daughter, K.Subashini, is accused of using abusive and intemperate language, in the school, with scant regard to teacher and elders.
6. According to the Correspondent, E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur, Madurai, the educational institution, known for its integrity and discipline, cannot tolerate indiscipline and insubordination by the students. Many parents send their children to the school, not only for the academic excellence, but also for the proven track record of maintenance of discipline, values and virtues. The Correspondent of the School, has further submitted that all the students who have passed X standard, cannot simply be admitted in XI standard, and admission is based on the recommendation of the selection committee. Transfer certificates have been issued to 25 students and that they have migrated to some other schools. Four other students along with K.Subhashini and K.Keerthana, are found to be unfit by the selection committee, for admission to Standard XI. Hence they were not given admission in standard XI. Admission in Bio-maths group in XI standard has got its own limitations, like accommodation and availability, laboratories, classrooms and strength of the teaching staffs and other relevant facilities. Therefore, not all the students, who have passed X standard in the school, can be accommodated in XI standard, as a routine manner. For the above stated reasons. She has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. After considering the rival submissions, vide order dated, 26.06.2015, W.P.(MD).No.9433 of 2015, filed by A.Kathiresan, claiming admission for his daughter, K.Subashini, has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, W.A.(MD).No.707 of 2015, has been filed. Learned Special Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 4 in the appeal and private notice was ordered to the school. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of this Court that another petition in W.P.(MD).No.10434 of 2015, has been filed by one Mr.S.Murugesan for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the communication dated 04.06.2015 by E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur, Madurai, and also for a consequential relief of admission to his sister's daughter, namely K.Keerthana, in standard XI in the said school. Representation has been made before the Writ Court that that another student has preferred an appeal against the order of a learned single Judge. On 09.07.2015, the learned single judged has ordered as hereunder:-
?It is represented that another student has preferred a Writ Appeal as against my order and the appellant therein and the petitioner herein are standing in the same situation and they have been sent out on the same reasoning.
In view of the above submission made by the petitioner, the Registry is directed to place this matter along with W.A.(MD)No.707 of 2015, after obtaining necessary orders from the Honourable Administrative Judge.?
8. In view of the above, W.P.(MD).No.10434 of 2015 was directed to be tagged along with W.A.(MD).No.707 of 2015. E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary school was put on notice. A preliminary objection was made by the school, that when the petitioner's mother is alive, writ petition filed by the uncle of the student, K.Keerthana, for admission to XI standard in E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary school, is not maintainable.
9. On the above objections, Premalatha, mother of K.Keerthana, has filed M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2015 in W.P.(MD).No.10434 of 2015, for substituting herself, as the writ petitioner, in the place of her brother S.Murugesan.
Accepting the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit, on 29.07.2015, substitution petition was ordered by this Court. Averments made in the supporting affidavit in W.P.(MD).No.10434 of 2015 for admission of K.Keerthana, in XI Standard, are on the same lines, as stated supra. Counter affidavit filed by E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur, Madurai, are one and the same. Stand of the official respondent is similar. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no need to repeat the pleadings in W.P.(MD)No.10434 of 2015. As both the Writ Appeal and W.P.(MD)No.10434 of 2015 are against denial of admission of K.Subashini, daughter of the appellant in W.A.(MD).No.707 of 2015 and K.Keerthana, daughter of the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10434 of 2015, submissions and materials on record being the same, both are disposed of, by a common order.
10. Writ Court, vide separate order, dated 26.06.2015, made in W.P(MD)No.9433 of 2015, dismissed the writ petition. Assailing the correctness of the abovesaid order and inviting the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.126, School Education (V) Department, dated 11.06.2007, Mr.Lajapathi Roy, advancing arguments for the appellant and the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10434 of 2015, submitted that, in the aforesaid G.O, the Government have issued instructions that admission to a student from Standard X to XI, within the same school should not be treated as a fresh admission, but only as a continuation of the original admission done in that school. He further submitted that no admission test should be conducted by the school, for their own students and after admitting their own students, if there are still vacancies, they may be filled up, either on the basis of Class X Board Examinations or by conducting an admission test, for the students who are from other schools. He also submitted that towards the implementation of the directions of the High Court in W.P.No.19834/2007 dated 09.06.2007, the said G.O., has been issued.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, demanded more fees than the one determined by the Private Schools Fees Determination Committee. Therefore, representation, dated 08.11.2013, was sent by the parents of the School, to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Madurai, wherein, it was stated that students of the School were put to mental agony and humiliation. Both the appellant A.Kathiresan, father of K.Subashini and the petitioner in writ petition S.Murugesan, uncle of K.Keerthana, were the Joint Secretary and Secretary, respectively of E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School Students Welfare Association. On behalf of the students, they have also sent a representation dated 22.02.2014 to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai.
12. Attention of this Court was invited to representations, dated 25.03.2014 and 21.05.2014, respectively. Reference was made to the representation, dated 23.07.2014 sent by S.Murugesan, Uncle of of K.Keerthana and further representation dated 27.08.2014 sent by A.Kathiresan, father of K.Subashini.
13. Inviting the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, in Roc.No.13789/B4/2014 dated 10.12.2014, addressed to the Director of Matriculation of Schools, Chennai, Mr.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the parents seeking admission for the students, further submitted that after verification, the school was found to have collected an excess amount of Rs.30,32,000/- from LKG to XII Standard students. He also submitted that the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, in the aforesaid letter, has stated that the abovesaid sum has been repaid to the parents and that the school has also given an undertaking that in future, fees more than the one determined by the Private Schools Fees Determination Committee, would not be collected from the students.
14. Inviting the attention of this Court to the marks secured by minor K.Subashini, 489/500 in Standard X and 490/500 secured by K.Keerthana, on re-valuation and the representations sent by the father and Uncle of the abovesaid students, respectively, learned counsel further submitted that despite the students securing very high marks in Standard X, admission has been denied, solely on the ground that the father and uncle of the abovesaid persons holding office as Joint Secretary and Secretary of E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School Students Welfare Association respectively, have brought to the notice of the educational authorities, the excess fees collected by the school.
15. Inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit and contents of the letter dated 04.06.2015 of E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Madurai, addressed to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai, learned counsel submitted that the reasons assigned in the abovesaid letter were that their students' names did not find place in the selection list for Standard XI and as on today, the school did not have sufficient infrastructure to admit more students.
16. Attention of this Court was also invited to the decision of the school to admit only 51 students in Standard XI Bio-Maths Group, wherein, in the last academic year 50 students were admitted. He also submitted that when the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.155, prescribing a ratio of 1:40 and when the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai, in his counter affidavit has also stated that if the school has admitted more than 40 students in the concerned Group in Standard XI, then the school could admit 80 students in the same group, admission to K.Subashini and K.Keerthana, has been denied. The contention that names of the students did not find place in the selection list for Standard XI is motivated and it is a counter action, to the genuine grievance expressed by the parents.
17. He further submitted that the reasons assigned in the counter affidavit of the School that the above students acted in an indisciplined manner, failed to maintain decent behaviour, they were disobedient to teachers and elders, did not show compassion to poor students and that there were complaints lodged against them, are motivated, made only for the purpose of justifying, non selection of the students for extraneous reason stated supra.
18. He further submitted that the other contention of the school that there is no infrastructure for admitting two students is erroneous, for the sole reason that during the previous academic year, 51 students were admitted in Bio-Maths Group and therefore, the objection is baseless.
19. Referring to the reasons now stated in the counter affidavit attributing misconduct against the students for denying admission to Standard XI, learned counsel further submitted that in the said School, every student has to maintain a diary. Students and teachers make entries regarding the day-to-day work to be done by the students. In the diary, both the teachers and parents have to sign. According to him, if any student had conducted in a manner contrary to the rules and regulations of the school, warranting any action, parents of such students would be informed.
20. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that there was no entry in the diary regarding the alleged misconduct/discipline and the parent was not put on notice, except the one, recorded on 11.07.2014, in the case of K.Subashini. He therefore submitted that the reason assigned for non selection is without any basis.
21. Inviting the attention of this Court to the decision in Salil Bali v. Union of India, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 705, learned counsel for the students submitted that even taking it for granted that the alleged misconduct could be attributed to the abovesaid students, even for the children in conflict with law, the essence of the Juvenile Justice Act and the rules framed thereunder is restorative not retributive, providing for rehabilitation and reintegration of the children in conflict with law into mainstream society. Therefore, E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Madurai-7, ought not to have taken a hard stand of preventing the students from pursuing their education in Standard XII in the abovesaid school.
22. Per contra, relying on the proceedings of the Selection committee for the year 2015-16 and contending inter alia that some of the students have committed acts of misconduct, insubordination and thus the Selection Committee did not find them eligible for admission to Standard XI and placing reliance on a decision in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust vs. Union of India, reported in 2014 (8) SCC 01, Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel for the school contended that in so far as, the rights of non-minorities to seek for admission in a minority private aided or unaided educational institution, is concerned, the minority right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, has to be protected.
23. He further submitted that the educational authorities cannot compel minority institutions to admit non minorities and therefore, the decision of the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, forcing E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Madurai-7, to admit students who have misconducted themselves and not selected by the committee, would amount to interference with the minority rights of the school, guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that there was indiscipline by the students and that therefore, the selection committee was right in deciding their ineligibility to seek for advancement to Standard XI in the school. According to him, the decision of the selection committee cannot be said to be arbitrary, considering the right of minority institutions in choosing the students, belonging to non-minorities, for admission to minority institutions. That apart, he also submitted that an indisciplined student does not have a right to seek for admission in an institution, which has a reputation.
24. It is also his contention that if any direction in the present lis, to admit the students, not considered as suitable on account of their conduct, it would pave way, affecting the morale of other students and the discipline, which the school has all along maintained. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal and writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
25. G.O.Ms.No.126, School Education (V) Department, dated 11.06.2007 reads as follows:-
Government of Tamil Nadu ABSTRACT School Education - Admission in Std XI in Schools in Tamil Nadu - Implementation of High Court directions - Orders - Issued.
School Education (V) Department G.O. Ms. No. 126 Dated: 11.06.2007 Read:
1. From the High Court, Madras, Order dated 9.6.2007 in W.P.No.19834/2007.
2. From the Director of School Education, LetterNo.44136/W1(4)(2), dated 11.6.2007.
ORDER:
In W.P. No. 19834/2007 filed by one Selvan A. Mohammed Wasif , the High Court, Madras has issued the following directions on 9-6-2007:-
(a) Admission of a student from class X to class XI within the same school should not be treated as a fresh admission but only as continuation of the original admission done in that school. So issuing transfer certificate to class X students within the same school and readmitting them to class XI is against the rules.
(b) All the students of the same school who have qualified in class X Board Examination should be offered admission in Class XI as far as possible subject to the availability of seats. The schools may consider students from other schools for admission after accommodating the students of their own school.
(c) No admission test should be conducted by schools for their own students. After admitting their own students if there are still vacancies, they may be filled either on the basis of the Class X Board Examinations or by conducting an admission test for the students who are from other schools.
(d) No school should prescribe any cut-off marks for admission to class XI or for allotment of subjects.
2. With a view to implement the directions of the High Court, Madras, the Government direct the Director of School Education / Director of Matriculation School, Chennai to communicate these orders forthwith to all the Higher Secondary Schools in Tamil Nadu for strict compliance.
3. The following procedure laid down by the High Court, Madras shall be followed regarding admission of students in Standard XI:-
The Director of School Education / Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai is requested to instruct all the Higher Secondary Schools in Tamil Nadu to display the number of seats available in Class XI in each stream on the notice boards as well as on the websites, if any, of the respective schools. The admission procedure, including the list of all the candidates who have applied in the respective schools, the merit list, if any, the list of provisionally selected candidates and the criteria followed for admission shall also be displayed on the notice boards of the schools. The Director of School Education / Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai is also requested to instruct all the Higher Secondary Schools in Tamil Nadu to communicate the above information to the parents of the students in Class X of their respective schools.
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) M. KUTRALINGAM, Secretary to Government.
To The Director of School Education, Chennai-6 The Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai-6 Copy to: Senior P.A. to Minister (SE), Chennai-9 All sections in School Education Department
26. The abovesaid G.O has been issued for implementation of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.19834/2007 dated 09.06.2007. It has been issued for strict compliance. G.O.Ms.No.126 does not make any distinction between minority and non minority institutions. No material has been placed before this Court, as to whether, the School has challenged the G.O. Directions of this Court are to the effect that admission of a student from Standard X to XI within the same school, should not be treated as a fresh admission, but only as a continuation of the original admission done in their school. G.O.Ms.No.126 also states that issuing transfer certificate to Standard X students within the same school and re-admitting them to Standard XII is against the rules. Government in the said G.O., has also stated that no admission test should be conducted by the schools for their own students.
After admitting their own students, if there are still vacancies, they may be filled up, either on the basis of Standard X Board Examinations or by conducting an admission test for the students, who are from other schools. G.O.Ms.No.126, School Education (V) Department, dated 11.06.2007, has been issued for all the schools, whether minority or non minority.
27. Parents of the students of the school, have objected to the collection of excess fee, humiliation caused to the students and made representations.
(i) The representation, dated 08.11.2013, addressed to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai, is extracted hereunder:-
mDg;g[dh;.
E.B.G. bkl;hpf;gs;sp khzth;. khztpah; bgw;nwhh;. K:d;Wkhto. nfh/g[J}h;. kJiu-7.
bgWeh;.
cah; jpU bkl;hpf; gs;spfs; Ma;thsh; mth;fs;. kJiu khtl;l jiyikf; fy;tp MYtyfk;.
jy;yhFsk;. kJiu 2/ bghUs;:
TLjy; fy;tpf; fl;lzk; tR{ypj;jy;. kw;Wk; FHe;ijfis kd cisr;ry; gLk;go ngRjy; nghd;w gs;spapd; eltof;ifapd; kPJ eltof;if vLf;f ntz;o/ ma;ah-Iah;kh.
kJiu. K:d;Wkhtoapy; cs;s EBG jdpahh; nky; epiyg;gs;sp muR Mizia kPwp. gzk; gwpf;Fk; braypy; kPz;Lk; <Lglj; Jt';fpsa[s;sJ/ elg;g[ Mz;oy; 2013-14y; muR eph;zapj; bjhifiatpl mjpfg;goahf Smart classf;F vd;W U:/720-= tPjk; tR{ypj;jjJ/ Midterm test vd;w bgahpy; U:/320-= tR{ypj;jjJ jw;nghJ kPz;Lk; U:/1500-= fl;l brhy;yp tw;g[Wj;jp tUfpwJ/ bgw;nwhh; Mnyhrid Tl;lj;jpy; bgw;nwhh;fs; ,jw;F rk;kjpf;ftpy;iy/ ,Ue;Jk; FHe;ijfsplk; jpdKk; gzk; fl;l brhy;yp vGe;Jepw;f brhy;ypa[k; mth;fs; kdk; ntjid gLk;goahd thh;j;ijfis cgnahfpj;Jk; FHe;ijfSf;F kd ntjid gLj;jp tUfpd;wdh; ,J Fwpj;J jh';fs; jf;f eltof;if tLf;Fk;go kpf jhH;ika[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwhk;/ ehs; 08/11/13 ,lk; kJiu-7.
,g;gof;F. xg;gk;-= bgw;nwhh; ikbahg;gk;
xg;gk;-=
(ii) Representation, dated 13.11.2013, addressed to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai, is extracted hereunder:-
mDg;g[dh;.
E.B.G. bkl;hpf;gs;sp khzth;. khztpah; bgw;nwhh;. K:d;Wkhto. nfh/g[J}h;. kJiu-7.
bgWeh;.
cah; jpU bkl;hpf; gs;spfs; Ma;thsh; mth;fs;. kJiu khtl;l jiyikf; fy;tp MYtyfk;.
jy;yhFsk;. kJiu 2/ bghUs;:
TLjy; fy;tpf; fl;lzk; tR{ypj;jy;. kw;Wk; gzk; tR{ypf;f FHe;ijfis xU fWtpahf;fp gzk; tR{hpj;J tUtijj; jLf;f ntz;o/ ,uz;lhk; Kiwahf tpz;zg;gpf;fpnwhk;/ Iah-mk;kh.
Vw;fdnt 8-11-13 md;W ,J gw;wp j';fSf;F kD bfhLj;Js;nshk;/ Mdhy; gs;sp eph;thfk; eph;zak; bra;j bjhiff;Fk; nkyhf U:gha; 1500-= fl;lr;brhy;yp tw;g[Wj;jp tUtij epWj;jtpy;iy/ jpdk; FHe;ijfis bjhe;jut[ bra;J FHe;ijfis xU fUtpahf;fp gzk; tR{ypj;J tUfpwJ/ ,jw;F Kot[jhd; vd;d jat[bra;J muR MiziakPwp gzk; tR{ypg;gij clnd jLj;J epWj;jp v';fSf;F cjt[k;go kpfj;jhH;ika[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwhk;/ ehs; 13/11/13 ,lk; kJiu-7.
,g;gof;F. (E.B.G. bkl;hpf;gs;sp khzth;. khztpah; bgw;nwhh;)
(iii) Representation, dated 22.02.2014, to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai, is extracted hereunder:-
E.B.G. bkl;hpf;gs;sp khzt bgw;nwhh; r';fk; (gjpt[ vz;/114-2011 kJiu) 4-43. rhe;jpefh;. K:d;Wkhto. nfh/g[J}h;. kJiu 625 007. bry; 9840820066. 9092273344 njjp 22/02/2014 bgWeh;
cah; jpU bkl;hpf; gs;spfs; Ma;thsh; mth;fs;. kJiu khtl;l jiyikf; fy;tp MYtyfk;.
jy;yhFsk;. kJiu 2/ bghUs;
Raepjpg; gs;spfs; fl;lz eph;zaf;FG epakpj;j bjhifiaf; fhl;oYk; mjpfg;goahd bjhifia tR{ypj;JtUk; ,/gp/$p/ jdpahh; gs;spapd; eltof;ifia epWj;jf;nfhhp/ Iah.
kJiu nfh/g[J}h;. K:d;Wkhtoapy; cs;s EBG (bkl;hpf;) cah;epiyg; gs;spapy; U: 1000. 1500 TLjyhf fl;lr;brhy;yp bgw;nwhiu tw;g[Wj;jp tUfpwJ/ FH;eijfis Jd;g[Wj;jpdhy;jhd; TLjy; gzj;ij bgw;nwhhplk; tR{hpf;f Koa[k; vd;w nehf;nfhL me;je;j tFg;g[ Mrphpah;fis urPJ Vjkpd;wp gzk; tR{ypf;fr; bra;Js;sJ/ Mrphpah;fSk; eph;thfj;jpw;F fl;Lg;gl;L kdpjhgpkhdkw;w braypy; <Lgl;L tUfpd;wdh; (Fhe;ijfis ePz;oneuk; epw;fitJk;. moj;Jk;. jpl;oa[k; = Jd;g[Wj;jp gzk; tR{ypj;J tUfpd;wdh;/) ,jdhy; Mrphpah;fSf;Fk; bgw;nwhh;fSf;Fk; gyKiw thf;Fthjk; ele;jJ/ Mdhy; Mrphpah;fspd; kpwl;lYf;Fk;. FHe;ijfspd; mGif. er;rhpg;g[f;Fk; bgw;nwhh; ehsiltpy; bra;tJ mwpahJ gzj;ij fl;otUfpd;wdh;/ ,J gw;wp j';fYf;F Vw;fdnt bgw;nwhh;fs; rhh;gpy; 8/11/2013 kw;Wk; 13/11/2013 Mfpa njjpfspy; ,uz;L kDf;fs; bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ/ ,k;K:d;whtJ kDit Vw;Wf;bfhz;L jf;feltof;if vLj;J TLjyhf tR{ypj;J tUk; bjhifia cldoahf bgw;nwhhplnk jpWg;gpj;ju cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;FkhU jhH;ika[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,lk;;; kJiu ehs; 22/02/2014 ,g;gof;F xg;gk;-= (brayhsh;)
28. In letter, dated 01.03.2014, the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, has directed the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, to take action and the said letter reads as follows:
kJiu. Kjd;ikf; fy;tp mYtyhpd; bray;Kiwfs;
X/K/vz;/1960-M1-2014. ehs; /02/2014 bghUs; bkl;hpf; gs;spfs; - kJiu-7. nf/g[J}h;.
K:d;Wkhto. E.B.G. bkl;hpf; gs;sp khzt ey bgw;nwhh; r';fk; - TLjy; fl;lzk; bgWtjhf bgwg;gl;l g[fhh; kD - rhh;ghf ghh;it kJiu-7. nf/g[J}h;. K:d;Wkhto. E.B.G. bkl;hpf;
gs;sp khzt ey bgw;nwhh; r';fk;. brayhpd; fojk; ehs; 22/02/2014/ ==== ghh;itapy; fhQqk; E.B.G. bkl;hpf; gs;spapy; TLjy; fl;lzk; tR{y; bra;tjhf bgwg;gl;l g[fhh; kD ,j;Jld; ,izj;J mDg;gg;gLfpwJ/ ,g;g[fhh; kDtpd;kPJ tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L mwpf;if mDg;g[khW kJiu. bkl;hpf; gs;sp Ma;thsh; nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;/ ,izg;g[ = ghh;itapy; fhQqk; foj efy;
xg;gk;-= Kjd;ikf; fy;tp mYtyUf;fhf kJiu bgWeh;
bkl;hpf; gs;spfs; Ma;thsh;.
kJiu-7/ efy; = brayhsh;. E.B.G. bkl;hpf; gs;sp khzt ey bgw;nwhh; Mrphpah; r';fk;. 4-43. rhe;jpefh;. K:d;Wkhto. nf/g[J}h;. kJiu-7/
29. The fact that A.Kathiresan, father of K.Subashini (Appellant in W.A.(MD)No.707 of 2015) and S.Murugesan, uncle of minor Keerthana, are the Joint Secretary and Secretary of E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School Students Welfare Association, respectively, is not disputed. Collection of excess fee, more than the one determined by the Private Schools Fee Determination Committee and the complaints of the Joint Secretary and Secretary of E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School Students Welfare Association given to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai, have not been disputed. Representation, dated 25.03.2014 sent to the District Collector, Madurai, by the Secretary of E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School Students Welfare Association is extracted hereunder:
E.B.G. bkl;hpf;gs;sp khzt bgw;nwhh; r';fk; (gjpt[ vz;/114-2011 kJiu) 4-43. rhe;jpefh;. K:d;Wkhto. nfh/g[J}h;. kJiu 625 007. bry; 9840820066. 9092273344 njjp 25/03/2014 bgWeh;
cah; jpU kJiu khtl;l Ml;rpah; mth;fs;.
Ml;rpah; MYtyfk;.
kJiu 20/ kJiu. K:d;Wkhtoapy; cs;s EBG jdpahh; nky; epiyg;gs;sp muR Mizia kPwp. TLjy; bjhifia Mrphpahfs; K:yk; tR{ypj;J tUfpwJ/ ,jgw;wp I.M.S. Mytyfj;jpy; gy Kiw g[fhh; bra;Jk; (5 khj';fshf) ve;jbthU eltof;ifa[k; vLf;ftpy;iy/ ,jdhy; Mrphpah;fSf;Fk; bgw;nwhh;fSf;Fk; thf;Fthjk; Kw;wptUfpwJ/ vdnt jh';fs; ,jpy; jiyapl;L v';fSf;F TLjyhf tR{ypj;j bjhifia kPz;Lk; bgw;Wj;jUk;go bgw;nwhh; rhh;gpy; kpfj;jhH;ika[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ ===== Mrphpah;fspd; kpul;lYf;Fg; gae;j FHe;ijfspd; mGikf;Fk; er;rhpg;gpw;Fk; bra;tjwpahJ bgw;nwhh; gyUk; gzk; fl;otUfpd;wdh;/ Smart Class Fees : Rs.720/-
Midterm test question paper : Rs.350/-
Without reason (without Bill) : Rs.1000/- kw;Wk; 1500/-
Smart class fees fl;lhtpl;lhy; ghlg[j;jfk; fpilahJ/ Midterm testf;F gzk; fl;lhtpl;lhy; tpdhj;jhs; tH';fg;glkhl;lhJ/ (ifahy; vGjpf;bfhs;s ntz;Lk;) U:/1500-= fl;lhtpl;lhy; jdptFg;giw. jdpg;ghlj;jpl;lk;. Kpd;tprpwp ePf;fk;/ ,Jnghd;w mr;RWj;jyfshy; ,Jtiu Vwj;jhH 40.0000-= U:gha; mg;ghtp bgw;nwhhplk; tR{y; bra;Js;sJ/ Mdhy; ,jw;fhd fl;lzj;ij Vw;fdnt ?fy;tpf; fl;lzf; FG? eph;zak; bra;Jtpl;l tptuk; mwpahj bgw;nwhiu. gs;sp eph;thfk; Vkhw;wp ,uz;lhtJ Kiwahf gzk; tR{ypj;J tWfpwJ/ Mdhy; vy;yhk; mwpe;j fy;tpj; Jiw Vd; bksdk; rhjpf;fpwJ?
fy;tpf;Tlk; tpahghu klkhfptplhky; jLj;jpl jat[bra;J jFe;j eltof;if vLf;FkhW bgw;nwhh; rhh;gpy; jhH;ika[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,lk;;; kJiu. K:d;Wkhto/ ehs; 25/03/2014 ,g;gof;F xg;gk;-= (brayhsh;)
30. Subsequently, the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, vide letter, dated 21.04.2014, has further directed the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, to inspect the subject school and take action and the said letter reads as follows:
kJiu. Kjd;ikf; fy;tp mYtyhpd; bray;Kiwfs;
e/f/vz;/3162-M4-2014. ehs; 21/04/2014 bghUs; g[fhh; kD - E.B.G. bkl;hpf; gs;sp khzt ey bgw;nwhh; r';fk; - rhh;ghf bgwg;gl;l g[fhh; kDtpd; kPJ eltof;if nkw;bfhs;Sjy; rhh;g[/ ghh;it rk;ge;jg;gl;l bkl;hpf; gs;sp khzt ey bgw;nwhh; r';fk; rhh;ghfg; bgwg;gl;l g[fhh; ehs; 25/03/2014 kw;Wk; 17/04/2014/ ==== ghh;itapy; fhQqk; E.B.G. khzt ey bgw;nwhh; r';fk; g[fhh; kDtpd; kPjhd ghh;it kJiu bkl;hpf; gs;sp Ma;thshpd; jdpf;ftdk; <h;f;fg;gLfpwJ/ nkw;fhQqk; g[fhh; kD rhh;ghf. rk;ge;jg;gl;l bkl;hpf; gs;spia nehph; Ma;t[ bra;J. Tprhuiz mwpf;ifapid ,t;tYtyfj;jpw;F mDg;gpa[k; chpa tpgu';fis rk;ge;jg;gl;l bkl;hpf; gs;spapd; khzt ey bgw;nwhh; r';fj;jpw;F mDg;gpitj;jpl kJiu bkl;hpf; gs;sp Ma;thsh; nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;/ ,J kpft[k; mtruk;/ xg;gk;-= Kjd;ikf; fy;tp mYtyUf;fhf kJiu ,izg;g[ = ghh;itapy; fhQqk; foj efy;
bgWeh;
bkl;hpf; gs;spfs; Ma;thsh;.
kJiu-7/ efy; = brayhsh;. E.B.G. bkl;hpf; gs;sp khzt ey bgw;nwhh; Mrphpah; r';fk;. 4-43. rhe;jpefh;. K:d;Wkhto. nf/g[J}h;. kJiu-7/
31. The Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai has sent a proceedings, dated 06.05.2014, directing the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, to send a report in the complaints of collection of excess fee. The said proceedings is extracted hereunder:
bkl;hpFnwc&d; gs;spfs; ,af;Fehpd; bray;Kiwfs;. brd;id=6 e/f/vz;/1799-m1-2014 ehs; /04/2014 ==== bghUs; g[fhh; kJiu khtl;lk;. nf/g[J}h;. E.B.G. bkl;hpf;
gs;spapy; TLjy; fl;lzk; tR{ypf;fg;gl;ljhf bgwg;gl;l g[fhh; - khtl;lf;FG K:yk; chpa tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L mwpf;if mDg;gf;
nfhUjy; - bjhlh;ghf/ ghh;it (1) jkpH;ehL gs;spfs; (fl;lz';fis KiwgLj;Jjy;) rl;lk; 2009 kw;Wk; tpjpfs; 2009 rl;lk; 22-2009/ (2) murhiz vz;/224 gs;spf; fy;tpj; Jiw (vf;!;=2) Jiw ehs; 05/09/2007/ (3) bkl;hpFnyc&d; gs;spfs; ,af;Fehpd;
bray;Kiwfs; e/f/vz;/4295-m1-2012.
ehs; /09/2012/ (4) jpU/v!;/KUnfrd; vd;gtuhy; tH';fg;gl;l g[fhh; ehs; 28/03/2014/ ==== ghh;itapy; fz;l muR Mizfspy; jkpH;ehl;oy; bray;gLk; jdpahh; Raepjp gs;spfspy; tR{ypf;fg;gLk; fy;tpf; fl;lz';fis Kiwg;gLj;jpl rl;lk; ,aw;wgl;L mJ bjhlh;ghd tjpKiwfs; tFf;fg;gl;L eilKiwg;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go jkpH;ehL gs;spfs; fl;lz';fis Kiwg;gLj;jt[k;. ,r;rl;l eilKiwfis mkyhf;fk; bra;at[k;. g[fhh;fs; kPJ tprhuiz elj;jt[k; khtl;l mstpyhd FG mikf;f ghh;it 3y; fz;l fljj;jpd; thapyhf bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ/ mjdog;goilapy; ghh;it 4y; fz;l floj;jpd; thapyhf kJiu khtl;lk; nf/g[J}h;. EBG bkl;hpFnyc&d; gs;spapy; TLjy; fl;lzk; tR{ypf;fg;gLtjhf jpU/v!;/KUnfrd; vd;gtuhy; tH';fg;gl;l g[fhh; mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go g[fhiu ghh;it 3y; fz;l ,t;tYtyff; fojj;jpy;
bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sthW khtl;lf;FG ,U jug;gpdUlDk; chpa tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L jpl;ltl;lkhd tprhuiz mwpf;ifapid Fwpg;gpl;l gotj;jpy; xU khf fhyj;jpw;Fs; mDg;gp itj;jpl nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ xg;gk;-= Kjd;ikf; fy;tp mYtyUf;fhf kJiu ,izg;g[ = ghh;itapy; fhQqk; foj efy;
bgWeh;
Kjd;ikf; fy;tp mYtyh;. Kjiu/ efy;/ 1/ bkl;hpFnyc&d; gs;spfs; Ma;thsh;.
kJiu-7/ 2/ jpU/v!;/KUnfrd;/ E.B.G. bkl;hpf; gs;sp khzt ey bgw;nwhh; Mrphpah; r';fk;. 4-43. rhe;jpefh;.
K:d;Wkhto. nf/g[J}h;. kJiu-7/
32. Representation, dated 21.05.2014, to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai, is extracted hereunder:-
E.B.G. bkl;hpf;gs;sp khzt bgw;nwhh; r';fk; (gjpt[ vz;/114-2011 kJiu) 4-43. rhe;jpefh;. K:d;Wkhto. nfh/g[J}h;. kJiu 625 007. bry; 9840820066. 9092273344 njjp 21/05/2014 bgWeh;
cah; jpU bkl;hpf; gs;spfs; Ma;thsh; mth;fSf;F. kJiu=7. K.g[J}h;. K:d;Wkhtoapy; cs;s EBG bkl;hpf; nky;epiyg; gs;spapy; 2014=15k; Mz;Lf;fhd fy;tpf;fl;lzk; muR eph;zak; bra;jij fhl;oYk; TLjyhf tR{ypj;J tUfpd;wdh;/ (Education Development) vd;w bgahpy; fle;j Mz;Lk; elg;g[ Mz;oYk; U:gha;/1000 kw;Wk; U:/1500 tPjk; ed; bfhilahf tR{ypj;J tUfpd;wdh;/ brd;w Mz;L fl;oa bjhifia chpath;fSf;F jpUg;g fpilf;Fk;go eltof;if vLg;gJld; elg;ghz;oy; tR{hpg;gij epWj;Jk;goa[k; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwhk;/ TLjy;fl;lzk; fl;lzk; fl;lhj bghw;nwhh; FHe;ijfSf;fd jdptFg;giw (X 'D'). jdpghlj;jpl;lk; vd bray;gLj;j Jt';fpa[s;sd/ ,ij cldoahf jLj;J epWj;Jk;go eph;thfj;jpd; cj;jutpl ntz;Lfpnwhk;/ fy;tpfl;lz eph;za Fgtplk; EBG gs;spapy; Smart class fpilahJ vd;W gjp[t[ bra;Jtpl;L U:gha; 720 tPjk; tR{y; bra;J tUtJ fkpl;oiaa[k; bgw;nwhiua[k; Vkhw;Wk; brayhfk;/ tUlk; xd;Wf;F 10 tFg;g[fs; kl;Lnk elj;Jtjhy; v';fs; Fhe;ijfSf;F vt;tpj gaDk; fpilahJ/ ,J gw;wp tptuk; nfl;Fk; bgw;nwhiu T.C.ia bgw;Wf; bfhs;SkhW kpul;Lfpwhh;fs;/ vdnt jh';fs; cldo Ma;t[ bra;J jFe;j eltoif vLf;Fk;go jhH;ika[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwhk;/ 1/ X 'D' brf;rd; TLjy; gzk; gl;lhj Fge;ijfSf;bfd jdp tFg;giwahf gphpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ (FHe;ijfis nehpy; brd;W tprhhpf;ft[k;)/ 2/ brd;w Mz;L Education Development vd;w bgahpy; tR{ypf;fg;gl;l bjhiff;fhd urPjpd; efy; kw;Wk;. Elj;jg;glhj smart class f;bfd th';;fg;gLk; urPjpd; efy; ,j;Jld; ,izf;Fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 3/ elg;ghz;oy; fy;tpfl;lzj;ij KgtJkhf fl;lKoahj bgw;nwhh;fs; jtiz Kiwapy; (K:d;W gUtkhf) fl;l mDkjpf;f eph;thfj;jpw;F cj;jutpl;L v';fSf;F cjt[khW nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwhk;/ ,g;gof;F xg;gk;-= (brayhsh;)
33. The Special Officer, Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, Chennai, has issued a notice to the EBG Matriculation School, Madurai, to appear for an enquiry and the said notice is extracted hereunder:
Private Schools Fee Determination Committee, DPI Campus, Chennai-6.
Ph: 044-28251688 Ref: Complaint received from Thiru.S.Murugesan (Secretary ?
E.B.G. Matric School Parents Association) against your school ? Enquiry ? Reg.
Take notice that enquiry on the complaint cited in the reference will be taken up at 10.30 AM on 21.07.2014 in the Office of the Committee.
You are required to make yourself present either in person or other competent person with letter of authorization in order to put forth your contention in this regard.
You are at liberty to produce all related and relevant documents, materials and evidence in proof of your objection.
Any failure in this regard or absence of representative of your school on the date of enquiry may entitle the Committee to pass suitable orders on merits based on your available records and by considering that you have no personal representation to be made.
Dated at Chennai this 26th of June 2014.
Sd/-
Special Officer, Private Schools Fee Determination Committee.
To The Correspondent, E.B.G. Matric Hr. Sec. School, Moondrumavadi, K.Pudur, Madurai 625 007.
Copy to:
Thiru.S.Murugeasan (Secretary), E.B.G.Matric School Parents Association, 4/43, Shanthi Nagar, Moondrumavadi, K.Pudur, Madurai 625 007.
(You are instructed to appear on the date of enquiry without fail)
34. Association through Mr.A.Kathiresan, has also sent a letter dated 23.07.2014 seeking for refund. In the said letter, he has sought for refund of Rs.1,500/- paid in excess to K.Vinothini, one of his daughters, who had left the school; Rs.1,500/- excess fee collected for K.Subashini for whom writ petition has been field and for refund of Rs.1,500/-, to his another daughter K.Mathubala, studying in the School. He has also sought for refund of a further sum of Rs,8,680/-. The said letter reads as follows:-
E.B.G. bkl;hpf;gs;sp khzt bgw;nwhh; r';fk; (gjpt[ vz;/114-2011 kJiu) 4-43. rhe;jpefh;. K:d;Wkhto. nfh/g[J}h;. kJiu 625 007. bry; 9840820066. 9092273344 njjp 23/07/2014 bgWeh;
cah;jpU ePjpaurh; mth;fs; jiyth; gs;sp fl;lz eph;zaFG. brd;id.
mdg;g[dh;
A.fjpnurd;.
16-32. mHfh; efh; 5tJ bjU.
nf/g[J}h;. kJiu=7.
Iah.
vdJ FHe;ijfs; K:d;W nkw;go gs;spapy; goj;J tUfpd;wdh;/ eph;za fl;lzk; TLjy; fl;lzk;
1. K.tpndhjpdp. XII Rs.13,120 + Rs.1,500
2. K.Rghrpdp. X Rs. 9,400 + Rs.1,500
3. K.kJghy. VII Rs. 6,850 + Rs.1,500 TLjy; Rs.4,500/- fl;o cs;nsd; fl;lha gLj;jp Rkhl; fpsh!; vd;w bgahpy; 4 Mz;Lfhykhf 720 x 3 = 2160 tpjk;/ 2160 x 4 = 8,680 4,500
-------
bkhj;jk; vdf;F U:/13,180 jpUk;g tH';f eltof;if vLj;jpl ntz;Lkha; kpfj;jhH;ika[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpnwd;/
35. Earlier, Mr.A.Kathiresan father of K.Subashini, who is now denied of admission in Standard XI, seemed to have sent a letter dated 27.08.2014 to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai, with a copy marked to the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District. The said letter is extracted hereunder:-
mDg;g[dh;.
A.fjpnurd;.
F/o.K.Rghrpdp X Std., K.tpndhjpdp XII Std., E.B.G. bkl;hpf; nky; epiyg;gs;sp.
K:d;Wkhto. kJiu=7.
bgWeh;.
cah; jpU bkl;hpf; gs;spfs; Ma;thsh; mth;fs;. khtl;l jiyikf; fy;tp MYtyfk;.
jy;yhFsk;. kJiu 2/ Iah.
kJiu K:d;Wkhtoapy; cs;s bkl;hpf; gs;sp. brd;w Mz;oYk;. elg;ghz;oYk; muR Mizia kPwp TLjy; fl;lzk; tR{ypj;J te;jJ/ ,J rk;ge;jkhf j';fsplKk;. Kd;dhy; Kjd;ikf; fy;tp mjpfhhp cah;jpU/ mKjty;yp mth;fsplKk; Kiwahf g[fhh; kD bfhLj;njhk;/ ,Wjpapy; fy;tpf; fl;lzf;; FG jiyth; cah;jpU ePjpaurh; rp';fhuntY mth;fs; Kd;dpiyapy; tprhuiz elj;jg;gl;L (23/07/14 ? 18/08/14) TLjyhf tR{ypj;jg; gzj;ij bgw;nwhhplnk jpUk;gf; bfhLf;Fk;go Mizapl;lhh;/ g[fhh; mspj;j kDjhuh;fSf;F D.D. K:yKk;. Kw;w midj;J bgw;nwhh;fSf;F mtuth; t';fp fzf;fpYk; TLjy; fl;lzj;ij brYj;jptpLk;go ePjpaurh; mizapl;lhh;/ eph;thfKk; ,jw;F xg;g[f;bfhz;lJ/ Mdhy; g[fhh; mspj;j bgw;nwhh;fspd; (A.fjpnurd; mw;Wk; S.KUnfrd;) FHe;ijfisa[k;. gzj;ij jpUk;g nfl;Fk; bgw;nwhhpd; FHe;ijfisa[k; gHpth';Fk; neh;f;nfhL bra;y;glj; Jt';fptpl;lJ/ 10 kw;Wk; 12 Mk; tFg;g[ khzth;fSf;F ork;gh; khjj;jpw;Fs; midj;J ghl';fSk; elj;jp Kof;f ntz;Lk; vd;gjw;fhf tpLKiw ehl;fspYk; (mizj;J rdpf;fHikfspy;) khiy 4 kzpKjy; 5 kzp tiu TLjy; tFg;g[fSk; elj;jp tUfpd;wdh;/ ,jpy; fye;J bfhs;s v';fs; FGe;ijfSf;F (Rghrpdp 10k; tFg;g[. tpndhjpdp 12 Mk;
tFg;g[. fPh;j;jdh 10 Mk; tFg;g[) 22/08/2014 Kjy; mDkjp kWf;fg;gl;lJ/ ,jdhy; ,t;tFg;g[fspy; elj;jg;gLk; ghl';fs; v';fs; FHe;ijfSf;F elj;jg;glhky; mth;fs; btspnaw;wg; gl;L nkhrkhd kd epiyf;F js;sg;gl;Ls;sdh;/ ,U khzth;fspd; fy;tpj;juj;ija[k;. mth;fspd; vjph;fhyj;ija[k; ehrkhf;Fk; rl;ltpnuhjr; brayhFk;. kw;w khzth;fs; kj;jpapy; v';fs; FHe;ijfs; btspnaw;wg; gLtJ mth;fis mtkjpg;gjhFk; (,r;bra;ifahy; kw;w khzth;fSk;. bgw;nwhUk; mr;RWj;jg;gLfpd;whh;fs;) ,jdhy; mth;fs; kd hPjpahf bghpJk; ghjpg;g[Fs;shfp ,Uf;fpwhh;fs;/ ,jdhy; mth;fs; kdKile;J jtwhd Kot[f;F brd;WtpLthh;fnsh vd mr;rg;gLfpnwhk;/ nkYk; 10. 12 Mk; tFg;g[ khzth;fsplk; practical markI Fiwj;JtpLnthk; vd;W Mrphpah; K:yk; khzth;fspilna gaj;ij Vw;gLj;jp tUfpd;whh;fs;/ ePjpaurhpd; epahakhd jPh;g;g[f;F khdth;fs; gypahtjh? vdnt jh';fs; jFe;j eltof;if vLj;J v';fs; FHe;ijfs; kw;Wky;yhJ vy;yh FHe;ijfisa[k; kd mikjpa[ld; ghlk; gapd;wpl clnd tHp bra;jpLk;go gdptd;g[ld; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwhk;/ ,lk;;; K:d;Wkhto ehs; 27/08/2014 efy; kJiu khtl;l Kjd;ikf; fy;tp mjpfhhp mth;fs;
,g;gof;F xg;gk;-=(brayhsh;)
36. Proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, in Roc.No.13789/B4/2014 dated 10.12.2014 of the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, addressed to Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai, makes it abundantly clear that E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Madurai- 7, has collected fee of Rs.30,32,000/-, more than the fee determined by the Private Schools Fee Determination Committee. The school has collected excess free from the students from LKG to XII and that they have repaid the same to the parents. Correspondent/Principal has undertaken that in future, the School will not collect any excess fee, more than the fee determined by the Private Schools Fee Determination Committee. Letter dated 10.12.2014 of the Chief Educational Officer evidencing excess collection is reproduced hereunder:-
mDg;g[eh;
jpU/n$h/M";rnyh ,Ujarhkp.
vk;/v!;!p/.gp/vl;/.vk;/`gpy;/.
Kjd;ik fy;tp ,af;Feh;.
kJiu/ bgWeh;
bkl;hpf;Fnyrd; gs;spfs; ,af;Feh;.
bkl;hpf;Fnyrd; gs;spfs; ,af;ffk;.
fy;Yhpr;rhiy.
brd;id?600 006/ e/f/vz;/13789-M4-2014 ehs;/10/12/2014 ma;ah. bghUs;
bkl;hpFnyrd; gs;spfs; ? g[fhh; ? kJiu khtl;lk; ? nf/g[Jh; ? ,gp$p (EBG) bkl;hpFnyrd; nky;epiyg;gs;sp ? TLjy; fl;lzk; tNy; bra;ag;gl;ljhfg; g[fhh; bgwg;gl;lJ ? neuo tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L mwpf;if gzpe;jDg;g[jy; ? rhh;g[/ ghh;it 1/jdpahh; gs;spfs; fl;lz eph;zaf; FGj;jiythpd; Miz. ehs;/31/10/2014 2/brd;id?6. bkl;hpFnyrd;; gs;spfspd; ,af;Fehpd; bray;Kiwfs; e/f/vz;/7273-m1- 2014. ehs;/02/12/2014 ******** ghh;it 1 kw;Wk; 2?,y; fhdqk; bkl;hpf;Fnyrd; gs;spfs; ,af;Fehpd; bray;Kiwfspd;go. kJiu. nf/g[Jh;. ,gp$p(EBG) bkl;hpf;Fnyrd; nky;epiyg; gs;spapy; jdpahh; gs;spfs; fl;lz eph;zaf; FGj; jiyth; eph;zak; bra;j fl;lzj;ijj; jtpu TLjyhf tNy; bra;j fl;lzj;ij jpUk;g khzth;fsplk; tH';fpaikf;fhd cz;ikj;jd;ikia cWjp bra;tjw;fhf gs;spapy; neuoahf 09/12/2014 md;W Ma;t[ bra;J Mtz';fisr; rhpghh;j;J fl;lzj;ij jpUk;g tH';fpajw;fhd cz;ikj;jd;ik mwpf;ifapid gzpe;J rkh;g;gpf;fpd;nwd;/ rk;ge;jg;gl;l gs;spapid 09/12/2014 md;W neuo Ma;t[ bra;ag;gl;ljpy; LKG Kjy; 12?Mk; tFg;g[ tiu TLjy; fl;lzkhf fPH;f;fhdqk; tptu';fspd;go gs;spapy; tNy; bra;jikf;fhd Mtz';fs; kw;Wk; mjw;Fhpa gw;Wr;rPl;Lfs; Ma;t[ bra;ag;gl;ld/ 1/vy;nf$p kw;Wk; a{nf$p ? U:/1000-? tPjk; 245 khzth;fs; = U:/2.45.000-? 2/1 Kjy; 12 Mk; tFg;g[ tiu ? U:/1500-? tPjjk; 1858 khzth;fs; = U/27.87.000/-? Mf bkhj;jk; U/30.32.000-? TLjyhfg; bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ/ gs;spapy; TLjyhfg; bgwg;gl;l bjhif U:/30.32.000-? KGtJk; (vy;/nf/$p Kjy; 12?Mk; tFg;g[ tiu) khzt-khztpah;fspd; bgw;nwhh;fsplk; jpUk;g tH';fg;gl;L Kiwahf xg;gk; bgwg;gl;Ls;sJ/ (xg;gk; bgwg;gl;l gw;Wr;rPl;Lfis j';fspd; nkyhd ghh;itf;F ,j;Jld; ,izj;J gzpe;jDg;g[fpd;nwd;/) nkYk;. gs;spapy; ,dptUk; fhy';fspy; jdpahh; gs;spfs; fl;lz eph;zaf; FG eph;zapj;j fl;lzj;ijj;; jtpu TLjyhf ntW fl;lz';fs; VJk; tNypf;fg;gl khl;lhJ vd gs;spapd; jhshsh; - Kjy;tuhy; cWjpbkhHpr; rhd;W bgwg;gl;ija[k; kw;Wk; fy;tpf; fl;lzf; FG eph;zk; bra;ag;gl;l fy;tpf; fl;lz bjhif tptuj;ija[k; ,j;Jld; ,izj;J j';fspd; nkyhd ghh;itf;F gzpe;jDg;g[fpd;nwd;/ Kjd;ik fy;tp mYtyh;.
kJiu/
37. E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Madurai-7 cannot dispute its conduct in collecting excess fee when they themselves have repaid the fee excessively collected from the students from LKG to XII Standard. Material on record further discloses that contending inter alia that the parents of the students had not been informed well in advance of the fees to be paid for the academic year 2015-16, S.Murugesan, Secretary of E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School Students Welfare Association, Madurai, seemed to have written a letter dated 15.05.2015 to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai, which is incorporated hereunder:-
E.B.G. bkl;hpf;gs;sp khztey bgw;nwhh; r';fk; (114-2011) 4-43. rhe;jpefh;. K:d;Wkhto. nfh/g[J}h;. kJiu-7. bry; 9092273344 njjp 15/05/2015 cah; jpU/ kJiu. bkl;hpf; gs;spfs; Ma;thsh; mth;fSf;F. Iah.
Kjiu. K:d;Wkhtoapy; cs;s EBG bkl;hpf; nky;epiyg; gs;sp 2015=16k; Mz;Lf;fhd fy;tpf;fl;lzj;ij 20/05/2015 Kjy; gs;spapy; fl;lr;brhy;yp mwpt[g;g[ tpLj;Js;sJ/ Mdhy; fy;tpf;fl;lzf; FG eph;zak; bra;j bjhif vJt[k; eph;thfj;jhy; bgw;nwhUf;F mwptpf;fg; gltpy;iy/ vdnt muR mwptpj;j bjhifia mwpt[g;g[g; gyifapy; 20/05/2015f;F Kd; xl;Lk;go Mizaplt[k;. (fy;tpf; fl;lzf; FGtpd; tpjpfspy; xd;W) brd;w Mz;oy; tR{ypj;jJ nghy; TLjy; bjhif vJt[k; elg;ghz;oy; tR{ypf;fhky; ,Uf;f tif bra;at[k;/ xd;Wf;F K:d;W kl';fhf nehl; g[j;jf';fSf;F (Note Books) gzk; tR{ypg;gij jLf;f. fle;j Mz;Lfs; nghy; bgw;nwhh;fs; jh';fns filapy; nehl; g[j;jf';fis th';fpf;bfhs;s mDkjp bgw;Wj;ju ntz;Lk;/ nkYk; fle;j Mz;oy; bgw;nwhhplk; TLjyhf tR{ypj;jj; bjhifia fhyjhkjk; bra;ahJ clnd bgw;nwhUf;F bgw;Wj;jUkhW gdpt[ld; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpd;nwhk;/ ,g;gof;F. xg;gk;-= (S.KUnfrd;) (brayhsh;)/
38. However, it is not known as to whether the said letter dated 15.05.2015 has been acknowledged by the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai. The fact that K.Subashini, daughter of A.Kathiresan has secured 489 marks out of 500 in Standard X has not been disputed. Though the learned counsel for the school has contended that in so far as K.Keerthana, student of X Standard, is concerned, is not meritorious, for the reason that she had secured only 460 marks, the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that on re-valuation, she has secured 490 out of 500 marks in Standard X, is not disputed.
39. Even in the counter affidavit filed to W.P.(MD)No.10434 of 2015, the school has admitted that K.Keerthana has secured good marks in Standard X, but the objections to sustain the denial of admission is that the selection committee did not include the name of the abovesaid student, is the alleged misconduct and that there are no infrastructural facilities. Letter of K.Subashini dated 26.05.2015, daughter of Kathiresan, addressed to the school and the letter of Kathiresan, father of K.Subashini addressed to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai, are extracted hereunder:-
mDg;g[eh;
nf/Rghrpdp.
j-bg/M/fjpnurd;.
16-32. mHfh; efh; 5?tJ bjU.
nf/g[Jh;. kJiu?7/ bgWeh;
khz;g[kpF Kjy;th; mth;fs;.
E.B.G.bkl;hpf; nky;epiyg;gs;sp.
nf/g[Jh;. kJiu?7/ kjpg;gpw;Fhpa Kjy;th; mth;fSf;F. ehd; ekJ gs;spapy; L.K.G tFg;g[ Kjy; 10?k; tFg;g[ tiu goj;J te;njd;/ ehd; gj;jhk; tFg;g[ njh;tpy; 489 kjpg;bgz;fs; bgw;W ekJ gs;spapnyna BIO-Maths gjpbdhd;whk; tFg;gpw;F nrUtjw;fhf tpz;zg;gk; bfhLj;jpUe;njd;/ Mdhy; 11?k; tFg;g[f;F njh;t[ bra;jth;fspd; gl;oaypy; vdJ bgah; ,lk; bgwtpy;iy/ Mfnt jh';fs; jat[ Th;e;J vdf;F 11?k; tFg;gpy; ekJ gs;spapnyna gog;gjw;F ,lk;
bfhLj;J cjt[khW nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/
kJiu ,g;gof;F
26/05/2015 j';fs; cz;ika[s;s
Subashini.K
40. Both A.Kathiresan, father of K.Subashini and S.Murugesan, uncle of K.Keerthana have made joint applications, dated 03.06.2015 and 04.06.2015 to the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District and the Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai, respectively, to intervene and take action.
Letter, dated 04.06.2015 is reproduced hereunder:-
mDg;g[eh;
A.fjpnurd;
F/O K.Rghrpdp. 10?Mk; tFg;g[ E.B.G.nky;epiyg;gs;sp.
K:d;Wkhto.
kJiu?7/ bgWeh;
S.KUnfrd;.
G/O K.fPh;j;jdh. 10?Mk; tFg;g[ E.B.G.nky;epiyg;gs;sp.
K:d;Wkhto.
kJiu?7/ bgUeh;
cah;jpU bkl;hpf; gs;spfs; ,af;Feh; mth;fs;. D.P.I.tshfk;.
fy;Yhp rhiy.
brd;id?6/ bghUs;
E.B.G bkl;hpf; gs;sp. v';fs; FHe;ijfis gs;spapy; ,Ue;J ePf;Ftij jilbra;af; nfhhp/ Iah.
kJiu. K:d;Wkhtoapy; cs;s E.B.G nky;epiyg;gs;sp. fle;j Mz;L fy;tpf;fl;lzf; FGtpd; tpjpKiwfisa[k;. muR Miziaa[k; kjpf;fhJ TLjy; gzj;ij tNypj;Jte;jJ.
,Jgw;wp j';fsplKk;. fy;tpf;fl;lzf; FGtplKk; gyKiw g[fhh; bra;J te;njhk;/ ,jdhy; gs;sp eph;thfk; U:/30.20.000I bgw;nwhhplk; jpUg;gpf; bfhLj;jjJ/ ,J rk;ge;jkhd tHf;F xd;W jw;nghJjk; epYitapy; cs;sJ/ ,jd; fhuzkhf gs;sp eph;thfk;. v';fisg; gHp th';Fk; nehf;nfhL. v';fs; FHe;ijfs; K.Rghrpdp kw;Wk; K.fPh;j;jdh. Mfpa ,UtUf;Fk; +1y; nrh;g;gjw;F mDkjp ju kWj;J tpl;lJ/ ,th;fs; L.K.G Kjy; ,g;gs;spap; gapd;WtUtJld;. tpisahl;L. xGf;fk;. Kjy; kjpg;bgz; Mfpatw;wpw;fhf gy ghpRfis gs;spapy; bgw;wth;fs;/ 10Mk; tFg;g[ ,Wjpj; njh;tpYk; ey;y kjpg;bgz;fisg; bgw;wth;fs;/ gs;sp eph;thfj;jpd; ,e;j jpOh; eltof;if FHe;ijfSf;F kdntjidia cz;lhf;fptpl;lJ/ ,e;j eltof;if gs;spapd; muh$fg; nghf;ifna fhl;Lfpd;wJ/ jat[bra;J ,jd; nky; jFe;j eltof;if vLj;J v';fs; FHe;ijfis gs;spapy; nrh;f;f mDkjp th';fpj;jUkhW ntz;of; nfl;Lf; bfhs;fpd;nwhk;/ ,g;gof;F S.KUnfrd;
Cell.9092273344 ,lk;?K:d;Wkhto ehs;?04/06/15 Copy to - kJiu khtl;l Kjd;ik fy;tp mYtyh; mth;fs;/ Pursuant to the abovesaid joint representations, there is absolutely no action from the side of the school.
41. From the letter, dated 04.06.2015, of the E.B.G.Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Madurai, addressed to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, it is seen that the School has assigned the following reasons, for not selecting the students, K.Keerthana, daughter of S.Kumarasamy and K.Subashini, daughter of Mr.A.Kathiresan (Appellant in W.A.(MD)No.707 of 2015),
(i) Their names did not find place in the selection list.
(ii) In the School, for admitting students in Standard 11th, a Selection Committee is in vogue for 10 years.
(iii) Students selected by the Selection Committee alone are admitted.
(iv) Selection Committee has not selected 35 students.
(v) As on the date, the School lacks sufficient infracture.
42. One of the reasons assigned by the School that it has no infrastructure to admit both the students, viz., K.Keerthana, daughter of S.Kumarasamy and K.Subashini, daughter of Mr.A.Kathiresan, in Standard 11th in Bio-Maths group in the school, for the academic year 2015-16, cannot be belived and accepted for the reason that the last year, about 51 students have been admitted and as per the version of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, more admission can be made.
43. As per G.O.Ms.No.559, the School is entitled to have more teachers, if the students strength is more than 40, in a group. When the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, in his counter affidavit, has categorically stated that if the school admits more than 40 students in a particular group, the School can also admit 80 stduents in the same group, there is no denial from the School, by filing any re-joinder to the said averment. Besides, the School has not come out with any details, regarding the student-staff strength of the school, except to state that, there is a lack of infrastructure. Such a contention cannot be countenanced in the light of the specific statement of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, who is the authority to consider the infrastructure and requirement of the staff, depending upon the student strength.
44. The fact that the School has admitted 1858 number of students, between Standard 1st and Standard 12th, for the academic year 2014-15, as referred to, in the letter, dated 04.06.2015 of the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, addressed to the Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai, amply indicates that the School should be having sufficient infrastructure and staff strength. A Bald statement of inadequacy of infrastructure, cannot be accepted.
45. Last year, about 51 students have been admitted in Bio-Maths group and in this academic year, 2015-16, 50 students have been admitted. Admission of two students, viz., K.Keerthana, daughter of S.Kumarasamy and K.Subashini, daughter of Mr.A.Kathiresan, would not make any major difference in the student strength in Bio-Maths group in Standard 11th, and in the light of the specific statement of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools. It is permissible also. No materials have been placed before this Court, the student strength of each group, in higher standards XI and XII. No materials have been placed before this Court, as to the staff strength, in each of the above sections.
46. The second reason assigned by the School is that in the School, for the past 10 years, a selection committee is in vogue, for selecting the students for admission to Standard 11th and for this year, about 35 students have not been selected. At this juncture, it should be noted that the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.126, for implementing the decision of this Court in W.P.No.19834 of 2007, dated 09.06.2007. The said Government Order is made applicable to all the Schools. No materials are placed before this Court, indicating that E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Madurai, has challenged the said Government Order. As per the said Government Order, preference should be given to the students of the same school. It should not be treated as a fresh admission, but to be treated as a continuation of the original admission. Therefore, the contention of the School that it has a Selection Committee, in vogue for 10 years and the students selected by the Selection Committee alone, would be admitted to Standard 11th, would amount to fresh admission and not continuation, as ordered by this Court.
47. Even taking it for granted, if some students have misconducted or showed any sign of indiscipline, the Management ought to have intimated their parents. On a random perusal of the diary maintained by K.Subashini, we find that day to day events are recorded in the dairy, duly signed by the teacher and parent. On 14.07.2014, there is an entry in the dairy, ?English test are given. Get parent's sign; Mat: BPT-t; Phy: Un-1. Book back-t; Eng: In Guide Page No.212 to 217-t; H.A) Phy: Sec-C. Bio: No H.W., due to disobedience.? On 11.08.2014, Sister Helan has written as follows:
?Dear Parent, Your daughter, K.Subashini, who is studying in E.B.G.M.H.S.S., Std & 'A' Sec., had remitted Rs.1,500/- towards the educational development.
Hence, kindly come and collect the amount along with the fees receipt.? The diary, dated 12.08.2014, reads as follows:
?Dear Parents, Open meet will be held on Thursday 14.08.14 Time: 9.00 to 11.00 am.,?
48. Thus, from the random perusal of the entries in the diary maintained by K.Subashini, duly signed by the parent and teacher, instructions have been given to the parents. If there was any serious acts of insubordination, indiscipline and high handed activities, as alleged in the counter affidavit, the teacher would have written the same in the diary. For the alleged disobedience on 14.07.2014, Home Work was not given.
49. Though the students are alleged to have involved in the acts of insubordination, indiscipline and high handed activities, there is nothing to indicate that any disciplinary action taken against them. None of the parents of the students, before us, have been informed. No norms for selection have been placed before this Court, except to contend that the abovesaid students have not been selected, due to the alleged acts, as stated supra. No materials have been placed before this Court, to substantiate the averments that there is a regular selection committee for admission to Standard 11th. Diary produced before us, do not reflect any acts of insubordination, indiscipline and high handed activities, except one incident reported on 11.07.2014.
50. Notwithstanding the above, from the proceedings of the Selection Committee, dated 22.05.2015, it could be deduced that as against the total number of applications received, for admission, only 136 seats were available for Standard XIth. Only 136 students can be admitted and therefore, the Committee was called upon to shortlist 136 students. The Committee proceedings reads that the Principal of the School placed various complaints against some of the students to decide their eligibility. The Committee members have gone through the complaints carefully, given by the teaching and non-teaching staff, and the complaints speak of the acts of insubordination and indiscipline against the following students, viz., (1)K.P.Ilakkiya, (2)K.Keethana, (3)V.Prabhaharan, (4)K.Subashini, (5) A.Subramani, and (6)K.Sunil Kumar.
51. As per the abovesaid proceedings of the Selection Committee, the abovesaid six students have not appeared before the Principal, though called for. Hence, considering the nature of the complaints, name and fame of the school, the Selection Committee has recommended that the abovesaid six students are not considered as eligible for admission to Standard 11th for the academic year 2015-16. Here again, no materials have been placed before this Court, as to whether, the students and their respective parents have been directed to appear before the Principal, in response to the complaints.
52. Management of the School speaks about discipline, disobedience and other acts of misconduct. On the basis of the alleged complaints, said to have been given by teaching and non-teaching staffs and by observing that the students have not appeared before the Principal of the School, held that the students are not considered eligible for admission for the academic year 2015-16.
53. When acts of insubordination, indiscipline and high handed activities, are alleged against the students, the minimum requirement, that is expected from the management, is to inform atleast their parents, for correction by the students, if any required. On the premise that the complaints are true and proved, the Selection Committee seemed to have arrived at the conclusion that the students are not eligible for admission to Standard 11th. There cannot be any finding adverse to the interest of the students, without enquiry.
54. Even taking it for granted, there was any alleged misconduct, the Management ought to have considered that maturity of a person, below the age of 18 years, does not even correspond with their physical growth. Therefore, even taking it for granted, that there was any acts of insubordination, indiscipline and high handed activities, a child can always be corrected, moulded and restored to the mainstream along with others. By arriving at a conclusion of insubordination, indiscipline and high handed activities, behind their back, students have been denied admission to Standard XIth. Though the School has mainly talked about discipline, in our view, they have failed to provide an opportunity, before arriving at the finding of insubordination, which resulted in denial of admission.
55. Perusal of the order impugned in W.A.(MD)No.707 of 2015, shows that the Writ Court has proceeded on the footing that the decision of the Selection Committee holding that the behavior of the student, towards teaching staff, as not good, is an administrative decision, which cannot be interfered with by the Writ Court. We have already observed that the decision of the Management is violative of principles of natural justice. Even taking it for granted, it is an administrative decision, fairness is required in such a decision. Reference can be made to a decision made in Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal reported in 1990 AIR 1402 = 1990 SCR (2) 84, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
?The shift now is to a broader notion of 'fairness' or 'fair procedure' in the administrative action. As far as the administrative officers are conerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly. For this concept of fairness, adjudicative settings are not necessary, nor it is necessary to have lites inter parties. There need not be any struggle between two opposing parties giving rise to a 'lis'. There need not be resolution of lis inter parties. The duty to act judicially or to act fairly may arise in widely different circumstances. It may arise expressly or impliedly depending upon the context and considerations. All these types of non-adjudicative administrative decision making are now covered under the general rubric or fairness in the administration. But then even such an administrative decision unless it affects one's personal rights or one's property rights or the loss of or prejudicially affects something which would judicially be called at least a privilege does not involve the duty to act fairly consistent with the rules of natural justice.?
56. The Writ Court has further observed that teachers are the best Judges, as students spend most of their time with teachers only and it is easier for them to assess the behaviour of each student. There is no quarrel over the said observation. But in the case on hand, the fact remains that by arriving at the conclusion, on the alleged acts of indiscipline, insubordination, etc., by violating the principles of natural justice, admission has been denied.
57. Perusal of the order impugned in W.P.(MD)No.9433 of 2015, in this appeal, indicates that after considering the counter affidavit, filed by the Principal of EBG Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Madurai, learned counsel for the respondent-School was asked to find out the possibility to admit the student, K.Subashini, but the School has maintained its stand not to admit the said student, on account of indiscipline. Observing that, ?in the event of this Court directing the respondent school to admit her in the school, the daughter of the petitioner will be given lesser marks on assigning some genuine reasons and hence, there will always be some mental block for the petitioner, his daughter and teacher and there will not be healthy atmosphere in the school.? and taking note of the stubbornness of the Management in not admitting the student in the School, the Writ Petition has been dismissed for the other reasons, stated supra.
58. In Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya and others vs. Saurabh Chaudhary and others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 794, the Supreme Court held that if a student of the same school passes Class X examination, then irrespective of whether he could secure the cut-off marks or not, his promotion to Class XI would be automatic without involving any fresh admission or readmission.
59. Though the learned counsel for the School has contended that students belonging to non-minority, cannot be compelled to admit them, in a minority institution and that the same would be an invasion to the rights, guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (Registered) and others v. Union of India and others reported in 2014 (8) SCC 1, and further contended that if any direction is granted by this Court to admit the abovesaid students, then it would have wider ramification in the matter of admission in minority educational institutions, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission for the reason that all along, the abovesaid students belonging to non-minorities have pursued their studies in the abovesaid School, upto Standard 10th and that admission has been granted, notwithstanding the fact that they belong to a different religion.
60. Secondly, it was not an issue at all for denying the admission to the students, in Standard 11th in Bio-Maths. Thirdly, no where in the counter affidavit filed before the Writ Court, the School has raised a plea that the educational authorities cannot issue any direction to admit a student, belonging to non-minority in a minority school. No argument has been advanced before the Writ Court. All that was contended before the Writ Court, was about the indiscipline and insubordination, etc., vis-a-vis integrity and discipline of the school. Merits of the students have been given a go-by and that the School was so stubborn and not willing to compromise. Even the counter affidavit filed before the Writ Court, does not reflect any show cause notice issued to the students. 'Audi Alteram Partem', the Latin expression well ingrained in the common law legal system translated in English means 'no one should be condemned unheard. Supreme Court in Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2009 SC 2375, explained the concept in the following terms:
?6. Natural justice is another name for commonsense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a commonsense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form.
7. The expressions ?natural justice? and ?legal justice? do not present a water-tight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigants? defence.
8. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated.
Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the ?Magna Carta?. The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to ?vocate, interrogate and adjudicate?. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [(1863) 143 ER 414], the principle was thus stated:
?Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. ?Adam? says God, ?where art thou? hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?.
9. Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond.
10. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.
11. What is meant by the term ?principles of natural justice? is not easy to determine. Lord Summer (then Hamilton, L.J.) in Ray v. Local Government Board (1914) 1 KB 160 at p.199:83 LJKB 86) described the phrase as sadly lacking in precision. In General Council of Medical Education & Registration of U.K. v. Sanckman (1943 AC 627: (1948) 2 All ER 337), Lord Wright observed that it was not desirable to attempt ?to force it into any procusteam bed? and mentioned that one essential requirement was that the Tribunal should be impartial and have no personal interest in the controversy, and further that it should give ?a full and fair opportunity? to every party of being heard.
12. Lord Wright referred to the leading cases on the subject. The most important of them is the Board of Education v. Rice (1911 AC 179:80 LJKB 796), where Lord Loreburn, L.C. observed as follows:
?Comparatively recent statutes have extended, if they have originated, the practice of imposing upon departments or offices of State the duty of deciding or determining questions of various kinds. It will, I suppose usually be of an administrative kind, but sometimes, it will involve matter of law as well as matter of fact, or even depend upon matter of law alone. In such cases, the Board of Education will have to ascertain the law and also to ascertain the facts. I need not and that in doing either they must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides for that is a duty lying upon everyone who decides anything. But I do not think they are bound to treat such a question as though it were a trial....The Board is in the nature of the arbitral tribunal, and a Court of law has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from the determination either upon law or upon fact. But if the Court is satisfied either that the Board have not acted judicially in the way I have described, or have not determined the question which they are required by the Act to determine, then there is a remedy by mandamus and certiorari?.
13. Lord Wright also emphasized from the same decision the observation of the Lord Chancellor that the Board can obtain information in any way they think best, always giving a fair opportunity to those who are parties to the controversy for correcting or contradicting any relevant statement prejudicial to their view?. To the same effect are the observations of Earl of Selbourne, LO in Spackman v. Plumstead District Board of Works (1985 (10) AC 229:54 LJMC 81), where the learned and noble Lord Chancellor observed as follows:
?No doubt, in the absence of special provisions as to how the person who is to decide is to proceed, law will imply no more than that the substantial requirements of justice shall not be violated. He is not a judge in the proper sense of the word; but he must give the parties an opportunity of being heard before him and stating their case and their view. He must give notice when he will proceed with the matter and he must act honestly and impartially and not under the dictation of some other person or persons to whom the authority is not given by law. There must be no malversation of any kind. There would be no decision within the meaning of the statute if there were anything of that sort done contrary to the essence of justice?.
14. Lord Selbourne also added that the essence of justice consisted in requiring that all parties should have an opportunity of submitting to the person by whose decision they are to be bound, such considerations as in their judgment ought to be brought before him. All these cases lay down the very important rule of natural justice contained in the oft-quoted phrase 'justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done?.
15. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the frame-work of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Expression ?civil consequences? encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations, and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life.
16. Natural justice has been variously defined by different Judges. A few instances will suffice. In Drew v. Drew and Lebura (1855(2) Macg. 1.8, Lord Cranworth defined it as ?universal justice?. In James Dunber Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen (1877-78(3) App.Case 614, 623 JC) Sir Robort P. Collier, speaking for the judicial committee of Privy council, used the phrase ?the requirements of substantial justice?, while in Arthur John Specman v. Plumstead District Board of Works (1884-85(10) App.Case 229,
240), Earl of Selbourne, S.C. preferred the phrase ?the substantial requirement of justice?. In Vionet v. Barrett (1885(55) LJRD 39,
41), Lord Esher, MR defined natural justice as ?the natural sense of what is right and wrong?. While, however, deciding Hookings v. Smethwick Local Board of Health (1890 (24) QBD 712), Lord Fasher, M.R. instead of using the definition given earlier by him in Vionet?s case (supra) chose to define natural justice as ?fundamental justice?. In Ridge v. Baldwin (1963(1) WB 569, 578), Harman LJ, in the Court of Appeal countered natural justice with ?fair-play in action? a phrase favoured by Bhagawati, J. in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 (2) SCR 621). In re R.N. (An Infant) (1967 (2) B 617, 530), Lord Parker, CJ, preferred to describe natural justice as ?a duty to act fairly?. In Fairmount Investments Ltd. v. Secretary to State for Environment (1976 WLR 1255) Lord Russell of Willowan somewhat picturesquely described natural justice as ?a fair crack of the whip? while Geoffrey Lane, LJ. In Regina v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs Ex Parte Hosenball (1977 (1) WLR 766) preferred the homely phrase ?common fairness?.
17. How then have the principles of natural justice been interpreted in the Courts and within what limits are they to be confined? Over the years by a process of judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural justice in judicial process, including therein quasi-judicial and administrative process. They constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing, having their roots in the innate sense of man for fair-play and justice which is not the preserve of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all men. The first rule is ?nemo judex in causa sua? or ?nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua? as stated in (1605) 12 Co.Rep.114 that is, ?no man shall be a judge in his own cause?. Coke used the form ?aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa quia non potest esse judex at pars? (Co.Litt. 1418), that is, ?no man ought to be a judge in his own case, because he cannot act as Judge and at the same time be a party?. The form ?nemo potest esse simul actor et judex?, that is, ?no one can be at once suitor and judge? is also at times used. The second rule is ?audi alteram partem?, that is, ?hear the other side?. At times and particularly in continental countries, the form ?audietur at altera pars? is used, meaning very much the same thing. A corollary has been deduced from the above two rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule, namely ?qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita alteram actquam licet dixerit, haud acquum facerit? that is, ?he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been what is right? (See Bosewell?s case (1605) 6 Co.Rep. 48-b, 52-a) or in other words, as it is now expressed, ?justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done?.?
61. For the first time, in the appeal, the School, by placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (Registered) and others v. Union of India and others reported in 2014 (8) SCC 1, has contended that if any direction is granted by this Court, to admit the students, that would have wider ramification in the matter of admission in a minority educational institutions, clearly indicates the mind of the School, in not admitting the students, at any cost, on the premise of the constitutional guarantee, under Article 30(1).
62. Mr.A.Kathiresan, father of K.Subashini, is a driver in Transport Corporation. No materials have been placed before this Court that Mr.A.Kathiresan, is economically sound. Through out the writ proceedings, it is not a case of compelling non-minority students to be admitted in a minority institution. Even in the judgment of Pramathi Educational and Cultural Trust's case (cited supra), the Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 28 and 50, held that admission of a small percentage of students belonging to weaker sections of the society by granting them freeships or scholarships, if not granted by the Government and the admission of some of the seats to take care of poorer and backward sections of the society may be permissible and would not be inconsistent with the rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
63. Let us also extract the aim of E.B.G. Matri. Hr. Sec. School, Madurai, which is as follows:
?Our school aims at imparting sound education to mould praise worthy character and all round development of the child. We instill in our students courage and hope to face all events of life in the experience of God. We prepare them to be the ambassadors of peace and to live the value of Love, Justice and Brotherhood.?
64. The prayer of Saint Francis, mentioned in the diary, is as follows:
?Lord, make an instrument of your peace Where there is hatred, let me sow love Where there is injury, pardon Where there is doubt, faith Where there is despair, hope Where there is darkness, light and where there is sadness, Joy O Divine Master, Grant that I may not So much seek to be consoled, as to console To be understood, as to understand to be loved, as to love;
For it is in giving we receive that It is in pardoning that we are pardoned, And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.?
65. If the prayers are recited, true to conscience and heart, then there is love. Apprehension of the School that by admitting the students, there would be indiscipline, is speculative. Institution claims to be a minority institution, where it preaches the prayer of Saint Francis. We only wish to remind the School of the abovesaid prayers of Saint Francis.
66. There is no specific case that the alleged acts of insubordination, indiscipline by the students, who have been denied admission, were followed by others. On the other hand, the students, who are not denied admission, have secured high marks, in Standard 10th and earned fame and name for the school. But for the guidance of the teachers, the students would not have secured such marks. Therefore, it could be reasonably presumed that during the entire course of study, upto Standard 10th, there was no serious dispute between the students and teachers. Only after the declaration of results in Standard Xth, by recording findings, behind their back, on some alleged indiscipline, insubordination, etc., admission has been denied.
67. On the earlier occasion, this Court in W.P.(MD)No.162 of 2015, dated 16.07.2015, has quoted the words of Martin Luther King (Junior) and Dalai Lama. We wish to reproduce, as follows:
?Martin Luther King (Junior):-
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.
Dalai Lama:-
All religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness. The important thing is they should be part of our daily lives.?
We also wish to quote, what Saint Mother Teresa, said on forgiveness, as follows:
?People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway. If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway. If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway. If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway. The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway. Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway. For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.?
68. Though Mr.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the students contended that for the alleged acts of the father and uncle of the students, Secretary and Joint Secretary of the abovesaid Sangam, for raising their voice against excess fees, which resulted in recovery, the above students have been victimised and punished, which contention is disputed, by stating that another student, K.Subashini's younger daughter, is still studying in the School in the Standard 8th and therefore, there was no victimisation, considering the materials extracted, we cannot wholly dismiss his plea.
69. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that admission of the students to Standard 11th for the academic year 2015- 16, ought not to have been denied. Impugned proceedings in W.P.No.9433 of 2015, is set aside. Mandamus is issued to E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, to admit K.Subashini and K.Keerthana, in Standard XI in Bio-Maths Group in the same school. Keeping in mind the prayers of Saint Francis, which everyone recites, let there be love, faith, hope, in the minds of everybody. Students, who are now directed to be admitted, should also consider, what the learned single Judge has observed on the role of teachers, which we reproduce:
?10.Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation has stated that ?a teacher cannot be without character. If he lacks it, he will be like salt without its savour. A teacher must touch the hearts of his students. Boys imbibe more from the teacher's own life than they do from books. If teachers impart all the knowledge in the world to their students but do not inculcate truth and purity amongst them, they will have betrayed them. ... .....Dr.S.Radhakrishnan has stated that ?We in our country look upon teacher as gurus or, as acharyas. An Acharya is one whose aachar or conduct is exemplary. He must be an example of Sadachar or good conduct. He must inspire the pupils who are entrusted to his care with love of virtue and goodness. ....?
70. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeal (MD)No.707 of 2015 and Writ Petition (MD)No.10434 of 2015, are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
(S.M.K, J.) (G.C., J.) 31.07.2015 Index: Yes Internet: Yes skm To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Director, Directorate of Matriculation Schools, DPI Complex, Chennai.
3.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Tallakulam, Madurai.
4.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Office of the Inspector of Matriculation School, Tallakulam, Madurai.
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
AND G. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
skm W.A.(MD).No.707 of 2015 and W.P.(MD).No.10434 of 2015 & M.P.(MD).Nos.1, 1 and 2 of 2015 31.07.2015 .