Sri Maragadambigai High School96 v. Director of School Education Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22-10-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.15271 of 2007andMP No.3 of 2007 Sri Maragadambigai High School96, Mariamman Koil StreetTindivanam 604 001rep. By its Secretary K.Devaraj.. Petitionervs1.Director of School Education Chennai 62. Director of Government of Examination Chennai 63. District Educational Officer Tindivanam Cuddalore District.. RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondentsto grant recognition for up gradation of the petitioner High Schoolby considering the application dated 13.4.2005 and publish the resultof the 25 students who took the X Std. Public Examination from thepetitioner School in March/April 2007.For Petitioner: Mr.C.Selvaraju Senior Counsel for Mr.S.ManiFor Respondents: Mrs. Shanmugavalli Sekar Government AdvocateORDERSeeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to grantrecognition for up-gradation of the petitioner High School byconsidering the application dated 13.4.2005, and publish the resultof the 25 students who took the X Standard Public Examination fromthe petitioner School in March/April 2007, this writ petition hasbeen brought forth. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition and the counteraffidavit are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on eitherside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Admittedly, the petitioner School which was originally startedas a Primary School in 1948, was granted temporary recognition. Following the same, permanent recognition was given on 1.9.1965. Thesame was upgraded as Middle School on 1.9.1982, and permanentrecognition to that Middle School was given in the year 1986.

According to the petitioner, the School is situated in themidst of Tindivanam Town, and the strength of the school wasgradually increased, and the petitioner applied for permission forupgrading the Middle School as High School commencing from 2005-2006,and the Chief Educational Officer inspected and recommended for thegrant of permission for up-gradation. It is the further case of thepetitioner that the Joint Director of School Education grantedpermission for upgrading the Middle School as High School from theacademic year 2005-2006 by an order dated 24.10.2006; that whilegranting permission, one of the conditions imposed on 25.10.2006, wasthat the teachers from VI to VIII Standard should be transferred to High School section; that as per the condition, the managementfurnished the list of teachers with qualification working in thesanctioned post, and requested to give approval that the teachersworking in the Middle School, were to be absorbed in the High School; that the same was accepted, and approval was given by the thirdrespondent on 21.3.2006; that on the basis of the permission given bythe department, the Middle School became High School; that in allstages whatever compliance they required, they have been scrupulouslycomplied with; that while the matter stood thus, the first respondentby a letter dated 7.3.2007, informed that 25 students must be treatedas private candidates on the ground that they studied in theunrecognized school and may be permitted to take examination as aspecial case; that the examination fee from the students has alsobeen received as regular candidates; that they have also beenassigned registration numbers also; that while the matter stood thus, to their surprise, such a communication was issued; that in view ofthe interim orders, they were permitted to write the examination; that since the up-gradation has not yet been granted to thepetitioner High School, now an application was made on 13.4.2005whereby all the requirements have been complied with; but, ordershave not yet been passed, and under the circumstances, it becamenecessary for the petitioner to move this Court for necessarydirections in this regard.

Opposing this petition, the learned Government Advocate wouldsubmit that it is true that 25 students were permitted to writ theexamination; but, it was only on the humanitarian ground; that in theinstant case, originally when necessary proposal for grantingrecognition to the High School was made, all necessary and requireddocuments were to be furnished; but, it was in incomplete shape on23.3.2006; that again, it was re-presented on 4.12.2006; that undersuch circumstances, the defects were noticed, and it was keptpending; and that further, the petitioner sent an explanation on28.4.2007 stating that besides 8619 square feet available in theschool premises, they have also got additional 3.22 acres of landwhich is situated ¾ km away from the school premises which would not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ satisfy the condition. Added further the learned Government Advocatethat as per G.O.49 dated 1.3.2007, minimum 10 grounds of land isrequired for the purpose of School and play ground; but, in thiscase, it is not available; that under such circumstances, impedimentwas felt by the department; that for the two reasons that thenecessary documents were not furnished and further, all theconditions imposed for up-gradation, were also not performed, it wasthe difficulty felt by the department, and hence, it has notconsidered.

In answer to the above, the learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioner would submit that all the documents and certificatesrequired for up-gradation, have actually been furnished in time, butnot considered. Added further the learned Senior Counsel that inview of the G.O.49, the petitioner has purchased 7 ½ grounds, and forthe remaining 2 ½ grounds, they entered into an agreement with theowner; that it would satisfy the requirement, and under thecircumstances, it could be considered for up-gradation.

After going through the materials available and hearing thelearned Counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that adirection has got to be given to the respondents for consideration ofthe application of the petitioner for up-gradation of the petitionerHigh School. It is not in controversy that pursuant to thepermission granted temporarily, 25 students have been allowed towrite the examination in 2007, and now, the application has been madefor up-gradation of the petitioner High School. The only reason fornot considering the case of the petitioner for grant of recognitionby the department, according to the learned Government Advocate, isthat all the documents necessary in order to satisfy the conditionsstipulated for granting recognition, were not furnished in time, andhence, it could not be done. The learned Government Advocate wouldfurther add that as per G.O.49, 10 grounds of land is required forthe purpose of school and play ground, and now, it is not actuallyavailable, and under the circumstances, the difficulty is noticed. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, all thedocuments which are required, have now been furnished, and followingthe same, the application was made on 13.4.2005. He would furtheradd that in order to satisfy G.O.49, 7 ½ grounds has already beenpurchased, and in respect of 2 ½ grounds, an agreement has beenentered into between the parties, and the same would be purchased bythe petitioner School shortly, and thus, it would satisfy therequirement. According to the learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioner, 2 ½ grounds could be purchased pursuant to the agreementalready entered into, within a period of three months herefrom inorder to satisfy G.O.49. Under such circumstances, this Court feelsthat a direction could be given to the respondents to consider theapplication of the petitioner dated 13.4.2005, for the grant ofrecognition of the petitioner High School within a period of sixmonths from today. If the conditions are satisfied, no impedimentcould be felt by the department for granting recognition as one askedfor by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Accordingly, a direction is issued, and this writ petition isdisposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.nsv/Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo:1.The Director of School Education Chennai 62. The Director of Government of Examination Chennai 63. The District Educational Officer Tindivanam Cuddalore District+ 1 cc to Mr. S. Mani, Advocate SR No.63754+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.63693WP No.15271 of 2007PV(CO)SR/26.10.2007