Madras High Court
P.M.Abisha (Minor) vs The District Collector on 20 October, 2011
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/10/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)NO.822 of 2011 P.M.Abisha (Minor) rep by Father and natural guardian P.Masilamony .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3.The District Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Regional Inspector of Physical Education, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 5.The Principal, N.V.K.S. Higher Secondary School, Attoor, Kanyakumari Distict. .. Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to take action against the fourth respondent in the light of the proceedings of the first respondent vide O.Mu.No.Va2/38443/2010, dated 29.11.2010. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.C.Peter Kanish Kumar ^For Respondents... Mr.K.Mahesh Raja, GA for RR1 to 4 - - - - :ORDER
The writ petitioner, who is a minor represented by her father and natural guardian, has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent to take an action against the fourth respondent in the light of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 29.11.2010. By the said proceedings, it is seen that the District Collector, Kanyakumari District had informed the Chief Educational Officer that he should take action against the Physical Education Inspector who had prevented the petitioner from participating in the inter school sports competition conducted by the Tamil Nadu School Education Department.
2.In the writ petition, notice was ordered to the respondents. However, the petitioner in her own admission had stated that the Regional Physical Inspector had refused to allow her to participate because those studying in the CBSE schools will not be allowed to participate in the sports events conducted by the Tamil Nadu School Education Department.
3.Though the petitioner relied upon an order passed by this court, dated 05.11.2009 in W.P.No.15954 of 2009, etc batch cases in The Tamil Nadu Physical Education Teachers Directors Association Vs. M/s.Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and others, the matter did not end therein. Subsequently, a batch of writ petitions were filed in W.P.NOs.20764 to 20768 and 22550 of 2010 (Minor A.Shuba Ranjani, rep by her Father and natural Guardian, P.Ashok Raj Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others) and a common order was passed on 01.04.2011. In paragraphs 2,3,4 and 7, this court had observed as follows:
"2.It is not the complaint of the petitioners that the interim orders were not given effect to. On the other hand it is surprising to note as to how the petitioners could challenge the impugned Government Order, which came to be issued after orders passed by this Court in various Writ Petitions starting from W.P.No.15954 of 2008 and batch cases in Tamil Nadu Physical Education Teachers Directors Association vs. Central Board of Secondary Education dated 5.11.2009. This Court considering the grievances projected by the various petitioners therein in paragraph Nos.24 and 26 gave a direction which is as follows:
"24. Even in the present case, it is essential for the Tamil Nadu State Government to make such an attempt to have broad based consultation with all the stakeholder. If necessary, they must form a committee to consider the controversies raised in these Writ Petitions and arrive at a proper solution, which will be crystalised in the form of a policy of the State Government in consonance with the constitutional mandate, considering the future interest of school going children in Tamil Nadu. Till such time such policy is spelt out and adopted, no CBSE students shall be prevented in participating in various sports events conducted under the Tamil Nadu School Education Department. ..
26. This Court, in the light of the above, is not suggesting the composition of committee for making such consultation. It is entirely for the State Government to frame guidelines by forming an appropriate committee. Suffice to state that the committee should also take into account the representations of various stakeholders on this issue."
3.The petitioners must thank that the respondent State Government did not question the direction issued by this Court. On the contrary, in order to evolve a policy by the State on these aspects projected herein issued in the impugned G.O. The same G.O. referred to the judgment of this Court dated 5.11.2009.
4.Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Director of School Education in his letter dated 25.2.2010 opined a Committee of Expert can be constituted and after obtaining their opinion, an appropriate policy decision can be taken and the committee must comprise of the Director of School Education and representative of all other Departments including the eminent sports person in the National and International sports and after taking a decision by the Committee, the State Government can taken appropriate policy decision for the academic year 2010-2011. The state Government accepted the recommendations made by the Director of School Education and had appointed a Committee. The Committee as directed by the state Government was to have the Director of School Education as its Chairman and the Joint Director of School Education (NSS) as its Secretary. The Committee comprised one representative each from the Tamil Nadu Sports Development Authority and the Tamil Naud Physical Education and Sports University as well as two representatives of Chief Physical Education Inspectors (both genders), two Regional Physical Education Inspectors, four Headmasters/Principals of Matriculation Schools, four Physical Education Director/Teachers and four eminent sports persons who have participated in the National and International sports events.
.......
7.But, however, it must be noted that the State Government had appointed a Committee for recommending to the Government to evolve a policy for the year 2010-2011 and that year almost will come to an end in another two months. It is regrettable that there was no report from the said Committee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and for the future interest of the students studying in the CBSE Schools, this Court hereby directs the Committee, appointed pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.121 School Education Department dated 9.4.2010, to meet as expeditiously as possible and evolve its recommendation on or before 31.3.2011. The State Government is in turn directed to take appropriate decision on the basis of the said recommendation in accordance with law on or before 31.5.2011 so that the State Government's policy will be made available to the students who are undergoing School in the CBSE pattern.
4.In the light of the above, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
5.The issue that is dealt with in this writ petition only relates to not allowing the petitioner to participate in the sports events conducted by the Tamil Nadu School Education Department. But for any allegation relating to collection of money improperly, the dismissal of the writ petition will not disentitle the authorities from looking into the grievance of the petitioner.
vvk To
1.The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3.The District Educational Officer, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4.The Regional Inspector of Physical Education, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.