Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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.

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.

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: