Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The respondent-school in question is a matriculation school. The matriculation schools in Tamil Nadu form a separate category of their own with separate identity. These schools in Tamil Nadu and in the Union Territory of Pondicherry were once affiliated to the University of Madras. As the Syndicate of the University of Madras decided that the Universities need no longer control matriculation schools and communicated the decision to Government, the Government formed a separate Board of Matriculation Schools in G.O.Ms.No.2816, Education dated 29.11.76. The matriculation schools were allowed to retain their original structure. They were permitted to levy fees and as such they were not eligible for any grant. They were free to adopt their own curriculum and make innovations that suit their needs. Later, a common curriculum for these schools was also introduced. During the year 1978, the Board of Matriculation Schools decided that a Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations") must be framed. Accordingly, the Regulations were framed and notified on 1.6.78. These Regulations are applicable to the respondent-school.

6. Since an incidental question as to the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 to the school in question was raised, we deem it proper to discuss and decide the said question at first. The Government of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in order to provide for the regulation of recognised private schools in the State of Tamil Nadu. Under the said Act, a new private school shall obtain permission from the Government under Section 4 of the Act. The procedures to be followed for obtaining permission and the grant of permission are not dealt with elaborately, as they are not required for the disposal of this writ appeal. The grant of permission under Section 6 of the Act entitles the school for recognition under Section 11 of the Act. Only such of those schools which has obtained permission and recognition were entitled to payment of grant under Section 14. In terms of the definition of a private school, such of those schools established with permission and recognition are governed by the said Act. Under Section 9 of the Act, a minority school need not get permission, but shall also get recognition, as the permission under the Act is for establishment of the school and the recognition is for the purpose of recognising the course. As already elaborated, the matriculation schools are governed by the regulations. In this context, it must be considered whether, in the absence of a specific enactment governing the matriculation schools, the provisions of the Act shall be automatically made applicable to those schools. This issue came up for consideration before P.Sathasivam, J. in the judgment in "TAMIL NADU MATRICULATION AND CBSE SCHOOLS TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS (20 02 W.L.R. 688)". After a detailed discussion, the learned Judge has held that in the absence of a specific provision making the Act applicable to the matriculation schools, it cannot be contended that the said Act would be applicable to the matriculation schools. The provisions of the Act is self-contained code insofar as the grant of permission and recognition to the private schools, established, administered and aided by the State Government under the Act. By the very nature of establishment of the matriculation schools without there being any aid, the Government did not thought it fit to make the provisions of the Act applicable mutatis mutandis to the matriculation schools also. Though the Government had not framed a separate enactment applicable to the matriculation schools, in view of the Regulations, we hold that the Regulations framed by the Government in the year 1978 shall alone be made applicable to the matriculation schools and not the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act. We are entirely in agreement with the view of the learned single Judge in this regard.

15. In regard to the arguments as to the power of a matriculation school to impose fine, reliance was placed on Regulation 21 relating to imposition of minor punishments. It is true that under Regulation 21, there is no provision for imposition of fine for any irregularity or breach of code of conduct on the part of the teachers. In fact, the code of conduct for teachers and other persons employed in a matriculation school is detailed under Appendix-VII of the Regulations. Imposition of dress code is not one of the code of conduct enumerated thereunder. However, we have traced the power of the management to enforce dress code, by issuance of directions in order to maintain uniform discipline, to clause 6 of Annexure VIII of the Regulations. When the management of the school is empowered to issue directions to the teachers to be followed, the necessary corollary would be that, for non compliance of such directions, the management is entitled to take action. We find that fine is one of the modes of imposition of penalty on the students for violation of the disciplinary regulations. Of course, the learned counsel for appellant is right in contending that in the event the directions are not followed, the management may be at liberty to take disciplinary action. In view of the fact that the overall control of the school shall vest with the management as per Regulation 3 coupled with the power under clause 6 of Annexure VIII of the Regulations, we do not find any irregularity in imposing fine on the teachers for violation of the directions issued in respect of the dress code. For the said reason, we are unable to accept the challenge to the impugned order imposing fine for non compliance of the directions issued by way of circulars in regard to the dress code.