Madras High Court
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Rep. ... vs The Neyveli Educational Society ... on 18 August, 2006
Author: D. Murugesan
Bench: D. Murugesan, V. Ramasubramanian
JUDGMENT D. Murugesan, J.
Page 2417
1. The writ appeal is directed against the order in W.V.M.P. No. 1632 of 2005 and W.P.M.P. No. 4520 of 2005 in W.P. No. 4059 of 2005 dated 26.07.2005. By that order, the learned single Judge had stayed the proceedings of the President, Neyveli Lignite Corporation School Committee, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Tamil Medium School dated 28.10.2004. As the writ appeal is directed against the interim order, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respective learned Counsel for the respondents, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposed of by this judgment.
2. Following are the few facts to be mentioned for the disposal of the writ petition:
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited (for short, "the NLC") has about 19,000 employees on its roll. To cater to the needs of all those residing in the area under the administrative control of the NLC, it established schools which are administered by the NLC School Committee, the sixth respondent. There are about 16 recognised aided schools managed by the NLC School Committee, which are located in different parts of the NLC campus and all are Tamil medium schools following the State syllabus. All the 16 schools are treated as one unit having a total strength of 11869 students and 283 teachers. The NLC School Committee imparts education ranging from I to XII standards. The admissions are not only restricted to the wards of the NLC employees but also are open Page 2418 to the other students as well. All the schools are governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.
3. As all the 16 schools run by the NLC School Committee impart education in Tamil medium, it was felt to establish and run English medium schools as well. In fact, the following schools were established to cater to the needs of those students who intend to undergo education in the English medium viz., The Clony School, The St.Paul's School, the Seventh Day Adventist School, the Tagore School and the Aurobindo School. As these schools are unaided and are managed by the respective societies/committees, the tuition fees were high viz., ranging from Rs. 210 to Rs. 250 for KG classes and for other students ranging from Rs. 245 to Rs. 270. As the demand for English medium schools increased and correspondingly the strength in the Tamil medium schools decreased in the early 1990's, some of the classrooms of the schools run by the NLC School Committee became vacant/unutilised in Block-12. Those classrooms were utilised for teaching English medium Kinder Garten students from the year 1997 on an informal basis. Hence the Neyveli Educational Society, the seventh respondent (for short, "the Society") was formed on 7.7.97 with the sole aim of running an English medium school in Block-12 basically for the benefit of the wards of the NLC employees. In order to run the school, in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, the Society applied for permission/recognition to the competent authority. By order dated 6.4.98, the Director of Elementary Education accorded recognition to the Society to run the nursery and primary classes from 2.4.98 to 1.4.2001 in Block-12. On the strength of the recognition, the Society started running the English medium school in Block-12 and expanded the same to the unutilised classrooms in the school buildings at Block-3, Mandarakuppam and Block-28, Thandavankuppam. A perusal of the order granting recognition shows that it was passed on the basis of the recognition of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Neyveli, which was endorsed by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Cuddalore. At the time when the recognition was granted, some conditions were imposed, but the order does not impose any specific requirement of getting consent from the NLC before granting recognition.
4. On coming to know that the Society is running the English medium schools in Block-3 and Block-28 without any permission/recognition, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Neyveli addressed the District Elementary Educational Officer, Cuddalore informing him about the violation of the Government rules by the Society in running the English medium schools in the campuses where already the Tamil medium schools had been established. The said communication was also addressed to the NLC School Committee. Based on the said communication, the NLC School Committee in letter dated 22.7.98 addressed the Secretary of the Society to vacate the English medium classes immediately in Block-3, Block-12, Mandarakuppam, Thandavankuppam and Block-28. The NLC School Committee vide its notice dated 18.8.98 also informed the parents of the students admitted by the society to admit their children in the private unaided schools or in any other schools on or before 27.8.98 in view of the subsequent Page 2419 development. It also wrote to the Director of Elementary Education on 25.8.98 seeking for cancellation of the recognition granted to the society to run the English medium schools. By the proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education dated 11.12.98, the Secretary of the Society was informed that the students admitted in the English medium nursery and primary classes in the campuses of Tamil medium schools should be admitted in private unaided schools and also indicating the withdrawal of the recognition granted to the Society on 6.4.98.
5. The above proceedings were questioned by the Society in W.P. No. 20876 of 1998. Though initially interim order of stay of the proceedings was granted by this Court, ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.2.2004. In the said writ petition, the School Committee was not a party. In the meantime, the Society also filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 24074 of 2002 seeking for a direction to the Director of Elementary Education to renew the recognition from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 5.7.2002 with a direction to the Director of Elementary Education to consider the proposal and pass orders. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, in his proceedings dated 9.6.99, called for explanation from the School Committee as to how the Society was permitted to run the English medium schools in the premises of the NLC. In the meantime, as the Director of Elementary Education insisted the Society to close the English medium schools which are run in contravention of the Government rules, the Society filed W.P. No. 37976 of 2002. Though initially interim order of injunction was granted by this Court, ultimately, the said writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn on 13.2.2004.
6. By subsequent proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Officer dated 19.5.2004, the recognition granted to the Society to run the English medium school in Block-12 was again renewed for the period from 23.4.2001 to 31.3.2004. One of the conditions for grant of recognition was that the Society must obtain consent from the NLC for continuance of the English medium school in the campus of NLC. Admittedly, the period of recognition had come to an end on 31.3.2004 and thereafter, there is no recognition as the Society neither obtained any fresh consent from the NLC nor applied for renewal of recognition. In the circumstances, the NLC by the impugned proceedings dated 28.10.2004 had directed the Society to vacate the premises, failing which action will be taken. This proceeding has not been questioned by the Society, but the same is questioned by the Neyveli Educational Socieity English Medium Schools Parents Association in the writ petition.
7. Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that as there were no English medium schools run by the NLC School Committee, in order to benefit such of those wards of the employees of the NLC to undergo the medium of instruction in English, the Society was established and it obtained recognition to run an English medium school in Block-12 for the period from 2.4.98 to 1.4.2001. Only at the instigation of some of the private unaided schools imparting English medium of instruction, the NLC School Committee is not allowing the Society Page 2420 to run the English medium school. The writ petitioner being the Parents Association is thus aggrieved, as their wards have been deprived of the right to undergo the medium of instruction in English due to the action of the NLC.
8. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing for the Society has supported the case of the writ petitioner. He would also submit that inasmuch as the wards of the NLC employees are deprived of the right to undergo the medium of instruction in English, the NLC must give consent for continuance of the recognition to the Society to run the English medium school.
9. Mr. N.A.K. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the NLC has submitted that though initially the Society had obtained recognition from the District Elementary Educational Officer to run the English medium nursery and primary classes in Block-12, the same was opposed by the NLC on the ground that already Tamil medium schools are functioning in the same premises and that running of the English medium schools in the same premises is contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act. Hence, even in the year 1998, the Society was asked to immediately vacate the premises. Having made an attempt to question those proceedings, the Society has not chosen to question the impugned order and only the Parents Association has chosen to question the impugned order. As on today, there is no recognition to run the English medium school and the students who were admitted during the period of recognition have been accommodated in the other schools and therefore, the learned Counsel for the NLC submitted that the challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner namely, the Parents Association is liable to be rejected.
10. I have given my consideration to the above submissions. The school in question is admittedly a private school governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act. In terms of Section 3 of the said Act, the Government is empowered to regulate school education in private schools. In terms of Section 4, no person shall, without the permission of the competent authority and except in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in such permission, establish on or after the date of commencement of the Act any private school. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 defines "competent authority" as meaning, any authority, officer or person authorised by the Government, by notification, to perform the functions of the competent authority under the Act for such area or in relation to such class of private schools, as may be specified in the notification. The competent authority as notified in the case of the school in question is the Director of Elementary Education. For the purpose of grant of permission, an application should be made by the Society as per Section 5. The application must contain, among other things, the extent of the playground available to pupils and the adequacy of the playground with reference to the strength of the pupils in the school; the amenities available to pupils and teachers; the sources of income to ensure the financial stability of the private school, the situation and the description of the buildings in which such private school is proposed to be established and such other particulars as may be prescribed. In the event the application is accepted, the permission is granted under Section 6.
Page 2421
11. That apart, when once such permission is granted, the competent authority may grant a certificate recognising the private school for the purposes of the Act. A perusal of the order of the Director of Elementary Education dated 6.4.98 does not indicate of any permission accorded under Section 6 of the Act. Nevertheless, the said recognition was restricted for a period of three years from 1.4.98 to 12.4.2001 for nursery and primary classes upto V standard to be conducted in Block-12 of the school run by the NLC School Committee. Apparently, as this order was passed without permission and in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 relating to the the extent of the playground available to pupils and the adequacy of the playground with reference to the strength of the pupils in the school; the amenities available to pupils and teachers; the sources of income to ensure the financial stability of the private school, the situation and the description of the buildings in which such private school is proposed to be established, an exception was taken by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer to run the English medium school in the premises where the Tamil medium schools are already functioning. Hence, by order dated 11.12.98, the Director of Elementary Education cancelled the order of recognition granted to the Society, which was though questioned by the Society, later on, the writ petition was withdrawn. On 13.2.2004 Similarly, the notice of the NLC School Committee to vacate the premises was also questioned by the Society and the said writ petition was also withdrawn on the same day. On and after the said orders, we find that the Society has neither applied for permission nor recognition or at least for renewal of recognition. Nevertheless, the Director of Elementary Education in his proceedings dated 19.5.2004 has accorded approval to the Society to run the English medium nursery and primary classes from 23.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 subject to the condition that the Society must obtain the consent from the NLC within a month and, if the Society fails to obtain the consent, the order is deemed to have been cancelled. Of course, this order has not been questioned by the Society probably, it has decided not to pursue the matter further.
12. As on today, there is no recognition for the Society to run the school. Even when the Society did not pursue the earlier proceedings dated 11.12.98 and 9.6.99, how far the writ petitioner namely, the Parents Association could sustain the challenge to the proceedings. Though Mr. D.Hariparanthaman has submitted that even in the absence of the challenge to the impugned proceedings by the Society, the writ petition must succeed at the instance of the Parents Association, as ultimately their wards are only to be affected. In matters like this, the writ petition cannot be thrown out on the technical ground that the impugned proceedings are questioned at the instance of the Parents Association, as ultimately the beneficiaries of the order granting recognition are the wards of the writ petitioner Association. Of course, Mr. N.G.R. Prasad has advanced his argument as to the importance of education. The said question need not be gone into in this writ petition, as there cannot be any doubt that imparting education that too, upto the level of VIII standard is a fundamental right, and in the circumstances, the English medium schools can also be established to cater to the needs of those students who intend to undergo the primary education in the English medium school.
Page 2422
13. However, we are now concerned as to whether the NLC could be compelled by issuing a direction to accord consent to the Society for running the English medium school in the same premises. In our opinion, such a direction cannot be issued, as it is entirely the discretion of the NLC either to give or refuse consent. The stand taken by the NLC in refusing to give consent appears to be also reasonable, as the educational authorities themselves have taken exception for running the English medium school in the premises where Tamil medium schools are already functioning. Hence the condition imposed in the impugned order while according approval by directing the Society to obtain consent from the NLC within a period of one month, failing which the approval shall stand automatically cancelled cannot be considered to be illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable. That apart, the fact remains that the period of approval has also expired and, as on today, there is no recognition.
14. Though this Court has held that the challenge to the impugned order cannot be accepted, there is one more aspect to be considered by this Court. It is the specific case of the petitioner as well the Society that all the schools run by the NLC School Committee are only Tamil medium schools and there is much demand for English medium school for the wards of the employees of the NLC. It is seen that there are some unaided private schools established and run in Neyveli and the fee structure, which we have extracted, are on the higher side when compared to the fee collected by the Society viz., a sum of Rs. 80 for LKG to II standard and Rs. 100 for III to V standards. In this regard, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner supported by the learned Counsel for the Society as to the parents are forced to admit their wards in private unaided schools and thereby are forced to pay heavy tuition fees merits acceptance. The importance of education need not be elaborated, as it is universally accepted that every State is bound to ensure free education to the students upto VIII standard. It is not as if the NLC is not running any school, as, admittedly, it runs 16 schools. Considering the fact that there are no English medium schools run by the NLC, we are of the considered view that instead of allowing the Society to run the English medium school, it would be well advisable for the NLC itself to start an English medium school within its premises so as to benefit the wards of the employees and other students as well. Hence, while dismissing the writ petition, we express our hope that the NLC would take all steps to start an English medium school in its premises and get such permission and recognition as required under the Act from the authorities so as to cater to the needs of the wards of the employees of NLC and other students of the locality to undergo their education in English medium school.
15. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. In view of the order in the writ petition itself, the writ appeal stands closed with the above observation. Consequently, W.A.M.P. No. 1615 of 2006 is also closed. No costs.