Madras High Court
T.J.Manjuladevi vs The Govt. Of India on 19 November, 2012
Author: C.T. Selvam
Bench: C.T. Selvam
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated :: 19.11.2012
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice C.T. SELVAM
W.P.No.41241 of 2006
&
M.P.No.1 of 2006
T.J.Manjuladevi .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The Govt. Of India
Rep. By Its Secretary Ministry Of Defence
New Delhi 110 011
2 The Govt Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary School Education Dept.
Secretariat Chennai 9
3 The Director Of School
Education College Road Chennai 6
4 The Director Of Matriculation
Schools College Road Chennai 6
5 The Inspector Of
Mat. Schools Near Rangaswamy Kulam Deo
Office Upstairs Chinna Kancheepuram 631 501
6 Sri Chakravarthy International
Mat. Academy ( A Higher Secondary School) No.
9 G.S.T.Road St. Thomas Mount Chennai 16
7 Mr.N.A.Seethalakshmi
8 The Deputy Inspector General
Of Police Crime Branch Cid Chennai 2
9 The Govt. Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary Revenue Dept.
Secretariat Chennai 9
10 The Dist Collector
Kancheepuram 631 501
11 Dr.Mrs.Y.G.Parthasarthy
Dean And Director Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan
Sr.Sec. School
12 Learning Leadership Foundation
(A Public Charitable Trust) Central
Administrative Office No.16 And 17
Thirumalaipillai Road T. Nagar Chennai 17
13 The Secretary
Central Board Of Sec. Education No.2
Community Centre Preet Vihar Delhi 110 92
14 The Govt. Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Chief Secretary Secretariat
Chennai 9
15 The Director
Central Bureau Of Investigation C.G.O
Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi 3
16 Mrs.B. Gajalakshmi
17 Mr.K.Palanichamy .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the fourth respondents order made in Na.Ka.No.1509/E6/2004 dated 18.08.2006 and quash the same and direct the fourth respondent to conduct the fresh enquiry in consultation with the second and third respondents also, in accordance with law, based on the documents submitted to the second respondent by the petitioner in her representation dated 28.07.2006, within the stipulated period of time.
For Petitioner : Dr.C.Panneerselvam
For Respondents : Mrs.R. Meenakshi CGSC for R1 and 13
Mr.R.Rajeswaran Spl.Govt. Pleader
for R2 to 4
Mrs. Selvi George for R6
Mr. Satish Parasaran for R11 and 12
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records of the fourth respondents in Na.Ka.No.1509/E6/2004 dated 18.08.2006 and quash the same and direct the fourth respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry in consultation with the second and third respondents also, in accordance with law, based on the documents submitted to the second respondent by the petitioner in her representation dated 28.07.2006, within a stipulated period of time.
2. Petitioner under communication dated 19.05.2005, addressed to the respondents 2 to 6 sought permanent recognition for sixth respondent school and issuance of orders acknowledging her as the educational agency to run the school subject to disposal of W.A.No.1809 of 2004 by this court. She also requested that permission be not granted towards starting PSBB Millennium School within the premises of sixth respondent school towards avoiding law and order problem and to safeguard the Indian Army Central Welfare fund. In W.P.16613/2005 the petitioner sought disposal of her representation dated 19.03.2005. This court under orders dated 22.03.2006 directed as follows:
"2. Considering the limited prayer of the petitioner, without going into the merits of the matter, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to consider the representation dated 19.03.2005 and pass appropriate orders, after giving opportunity of hearing to all persons concerned, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Connected W.P.M.P. No.18105 of 2005 is closed.
Pursuant thereto and consequent to issue of notice, the petitioner as also the secretary of the sixth respondent have appeared and participated in the enquiry conducted by fourth respondent/Director of Matriculation Schools on 28.07.2006. Under orders in Na.Ka.No.1509/E6/2004 dated 18.08.2006, the fourth respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition against such orders.
3. We have heard Dr.C.Panneerselvam, learned counsel for petitioner. Mrs.R.Meenakshi CGSC for Respondent 1 and 13, Mr.R.Rajeswaran, Spl.Govt. Pleader for Respondents 2 to 4, Mrs. Selvi George for 6th respondent and Mr. Satish Parasaran for respondents 11 and 12.
4. Shorn of unnecessary particulars, which are way too many, the claim of the petitioner is that she had established the sixth respondent school in June 1978, that she obtained recognition in the year 1980 and the entire administration of the school was under her control from its inception in June 1978. She had won several accolades for her impeccable and creditworthy running of the school. One late P.N. Arumugam, at whose instance the petitioner had established the sixth respondent school, had siphoned funds belonging to the school and had entered into conspiracy with a near endless list of persons/teachers towards removing her from the administration of the sixth respondent school.
5. On communication of the late P.N.Arumugam dated 23.09.1992, dismissing the petitioner she preferred an appeal dated 30.10.1992, before the third respondent. Pursuant to direction of this court in W.P.No.991/94 dated 21.01.1994, the petitioners appeal was disposed of by third respondent under his proceedings in Rc.No.139586/E3/93, dated 24.04.1994 directing her reinstatement. Petitioner informs that this court under orders in W.P.No.19495/1994 dated 23.09.1996, directed the respondents 3 and 4 to take steps to implement the order dated 21.04.1994 within eight weeks. She contends that such order was not implemented and for a second time a conspiracy was hatched towards sacking her and a second order of dismissal dated 26.11.1996, was addressed to the petitioner by the late P.N. Arumugam, who was holding the post of President of the sixth respondent school and by reference to the same charges covered by show cause notice issued on 06.05.1992. Petitioner had moved this court in W.P.No.17346 of 1997 against such order, and the same had been allowed. There against, the sixth respondent had moved W.A.No1087 of 2000 and under orders of this court dated 17.07.2000 had obtained an order of stay on false allegations.
6. Alleging several wrong doings, petitioner sent a representation dated 19.03.2005, requesting the respondents 2 to 5 to grant permanent recognition to her school (i.e) sixth respondent school and issue orders to the petitioner to run the same. She also requested such respondents not to allow anybody or any agency or any kind of Trust to start the PSBB Millennium school inside the campus of the sixth respondent school to avoid law and order problem and to safeguard the Indian Army Central Welfare fund. As her representation was not disposed of, she moved W.P.16613 of 2005. Orders wherein dated 22.03.2006, have been reproduced herein above.
7. Petitioner submits that the fourth respondent had misconducted himself in conduct of proceedings pursuant to the order above referred and in passing orders in Na.Ka.No.1509/E6/2004 dated 18.08.2006. We find that in raising the claim of being declared the 'educational agency' of the sixth respondent, the petitioner has sought the same subject to the disposal of the main W.A.No.1809/2004. W.A.No.1809/2004 was preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal of the Writ Petition moved by her in W.P.No.35396 of 2003. In W.P.No.35396 of 2003, the petitioner had sought the issue of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the Government of Tamilnadu, to rectify all the cases of breach of statutory rules/Articles laid down in the code of Regulations for Matriculation schools, Tamilnadu, in respect of the school, viz., Sri Chakravarthy International Matriculation Academy (a higher secondary school), No.9 GST Road, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai 16, which is functioning in the Time Expired Lease Land of the Government, based on the representation dated 16.08.2002. W.A.No.1809 of 2004 was disposed of on 26.08.2008, as follows:
" 4. This writ appeal has been admitted on 14.06.2004. no interim order has been granted by this court. Hence, as per the order of the writ court, the fourth respondent has taken the matter of his file and ultimately disposed of the representation by proceedings dated 11.05.2004 by informing that all other points contained in her four representations are devoid of substance. It is further stated in the proceedings that the petitioner is informed that the department is ready to look into her grievance and redress it if she is able to produce substantial materials, to prove her contention against the management and there is no use in submitting repeated representations making wild allegations without any basis to the Director or to the Government.
5. In the circumstances, there remains nothing to be adjudicated in this appeal. If the appellant is aggrieved, she can proceed in accordance with law. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are consequently dismissed. "
Where the very relief claimed by the petitioner before the respondents was sought subject to the outcome of W.A.No.1809 of 2004 and such writ appeal of the petitioner stands dismissed, nothing survives for consideration.
This apart, even on merits, we find that against the claim of the petitioner being the 'educational agency' of the sixth respondent school, the fourth respondent has found that the petitioner had neither established nor ever functioned as the correspondent/secretary of the sixth respondent school and that as per Rule 3 of Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools, Tamilnadu it was only a Correspondent/Secretary of a school who could seek permission for establishment or recognition. Taking note of the petitioner's admission during personal enquiry on 28.07.2006, that she had never functioned as Correspondent/Manager, the fourth respondent has found the petitioner's claim untenable. As regards the petitioner seeking relief against the establishment of the PSBB Millennium School within the premises of the sixth respondent school, the same has been negated on the ground that no application towards such purpose had been received by it. It was found that a school following the CBSE syllabus was functioning close to the sixth respondent school and the same was not functioning within the sixth respondent school premises. Between the two schools, there was vacant land belonging to a third party. It was informed that in W.P.No.17346/1997, this petitioner had sought to be reinstated as the principal of the sixth respondent school and in orders therein dated 20.04.2000, the original post held by the petitioner had been informed to be that of 'principal' and therefore the claim of the petitioner in the personal hearing that in such order she had been held to be the Educational agency was not acceptable. We find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Writ petition is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1. The Secretary Ministry Of Defence Govt. Of India New Delhi 110 011 2 The Secretary School Education Dept. Govt Of Tamilnadu Secretariat Chennai 9 3 The Director Of School Education College Road Chennai 6 4 The Director Of Matriculation Schools College Road Chennai 6 5 The Inspector Of Mat. Schools Near Rangaswamy Kulam Deo Office Upstairs Chinna Kancheepuram 631 501 6 Sri Chakravarthy International Mat. Academy ( A Higher Secondary School) No. 9 G.S.T.Road St. Thomas Mount Chennai 16 7 The Deputy Inspector General Of Police Crime Branch Cid Chennai 2 8 The Secretary Revenue Dept, Govt. Of Tamilnadu Secretariat Chennai 9 9 The Dist Collector Kancheepuram 631 501 10 The Secretary Central Board Of Sec. Education No.2 Community Centre Preet Vihar Delhi 110 92 11 The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Tamilnadu Chennai 9 12 The Director Central Bureau Of Investigation C.G.O Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi