Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:12.12.2007CORAM;THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.NO.36147 OF 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007R.K.Saravana Kumar..Petitionervs1.The Director of HigherSecondary EducationCollege RoadChennai 600 0062.Chief Educational OfficerCuddalore District. Cuddalore3.District Educational OfficerChidambaram4.The Head MasterGovt., Nandanar BoysHigher Secondary SchoolChidambaram5.Child Labour HelplineKaraikal..RespondentsWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the 4threspondent to allow the petitioner to attend the XII Std Class 1stGroup `A'-1 Section in the 4th respondent's School for the academicyear 2007 to 2008.for petitioner :Mr.A.Muthukumarfor respondents :Ms.Dakshayani Reddy, G.A. (E) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDERThe writ petition is filed for a direction against the 4threspondent to allow the petitioner to attend the XII Std Class 1stGroup `A'-1 Section in the 4th respondent School for the academicyear 2007-2008.2.The petitioner is admittedly a student of the 4threspondent school doing XII Std 1st Group `A'-1 Section. It is hisallegation that the 4th respondent has been ill-disposed of towardshim due to various reasons and has been using harsh words. It isalso his case that the 5th respondent-Child Labour Helpline, Karaikal has infact taken efforts to persuade the 4th respondentto admit him to continue in the course. In spite of it, accordingto the petitioner, the 4th respondent is not allowing thepetitioner to continue in the course which will affect his future. 3.When the matter came up for admission this Court directedMs.Dakshayani Reddy, learned Government Advocate to take notice forrespondents 1 to 4. 4.Today, Ms.Dakshayani Reddy, learned Government Advocateappearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 has submitted oninstructions that the petitioner has not behaved well and he hasbeen using cell phone in the class room. Naturally, his presenceaffects the studies of other students. According to her, the 4threspondent considering the future of the petitioner has not takenany action. She also fairly submits that if the petitioner and hismother give an undertaking about his future conduct, the 4threspondent will consider in allowing him to continue in the classroom.5.In view of the same, the petitioner as well as hismother-S.Jothi have filed separate affidavits of undertaking. Thesaid affidavits of undertaking given by them shall form part of therecord. In the affidavit of undertaking the petitioner has givenan undertaking that he will not cause problem to any one includingthe 4th respondent. Likewise, the mother of the petitioner hasalso filed an affidavit of undertaking, undertaking theresponsibility of her son's conduct. The undertakings arerecorded. 6.The Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction tothe 4th respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in the XIIStd Class 1st Group `A'-1 Section based on the undertaking given bythe petitioner as well as his mother in this Court. It is alsomade clear that the petitioner shall perform his function asstudent properly and not to disturb any other students and act asper the undertaking. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

#7. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also disposed of.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.salTo1.The Director of HigherSecondary EducationCollege RoadChennai 600 0062.Chief Educational OfficerCuddalore District, Cuddalore3.District Educational OfficerChidambaram4.The Head MasterGovt., Nandanar BoysHigher Secondary SchoolChidambaram5.Child Labour HelplineKaraikal1 cc to Mr.A. Muthukumar, Advocate, Sr. 734431 cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 73718W.P.NO.36147 of 2007and M.P.No.1 of 2007 RS (CO)kk 13/12