Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On the contrary, Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would contend that the proposal seeking permission to open a Matriculation in the name and style of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetathipathi Jayendira Saraswathi Sankara Matriculation School received from the petitioner was returned by the fourth respondent on 02.01.2015 by pointing out various deficiencies that are listed in para No.4 of the counter affidavit of the third respondent. According to the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, under Article 10 in Chapter II vide clauses (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv) of Code of Regulations for Matriculation School, Tamil Nadu, the competent authority under the Code, being the Director of Matriculation Schools, has the power to grant permission to open a private matriculation school or to upgrade an existing school subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. In exercise of such powers and having regard to the various inconsistencies in the functioning of the Matriculation Schools, including regulation of fee structure, a suggestion was made to the Government to constitute a sub-committee for analysing the existing system and to suggest ways and means. Accordingly, a committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr. S.V. Chittibabu, former Vice Chancellor. The sub-committee collected comprehensive data from 3000 matriculation schools in Tamil Nadu and also received representations from school managements, parents, public and teachers. The sub-committee also visited other States and studied the functiioning of the schools in those States. Thereafter, on the basis of the recommendations made by the committee, the Government issued G.O. (2D) No.48, School Education Department dated 21.07.2014 directing all the Matriculation Schools to provide minimum infrastructural facilities as a condition precedent for grant of recognition. However, the Government, considering the steep rise in the land costs has granted three or four years time for the management to satisfy the conditions with regard to land area. Inspite of the same, the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirements as on date, rather, they have challenged the vires of the Government Order. In fact, the time granted to fulfil the land area requirement will cover only the existing schools and not to newly constructed schools. In the present case, even according to the petitioner, the school building was declared open on 03.11.2013 for which recognition is being sought for by the petitioner. Further, as on date, the petitioner has recognition only to impart education upto Standard V and such recognition is valid till December 2017. Such time limit granted to the existing schools has no application to the school re-opened by the petitioner and the recognition sought for imparting education from standard VI to XII in the Matriculation format. As on today, the Matriculation Schools have been given time to comply with the land area requirement till 31.05.2016 in the larger interest of the students and therefore also, interference of this Court is not warranted.