High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 21.6.2007 C O R A M :THE HONOURABLE MR.A.P.SHAH, THE CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANIW.P.Nos.19990, 20351 to 20354 of 2007andM.P.Nos.1 to 3, 1+1+1+1 of 20071. D.Aravinth2. C.Susanth3. R.Pradeep4. P.Kishorekumar5. G.S.Sudhish6. T.Subash7. P.Ramprasath8. Varadharaj9. Prasanth10. N.Nirmal11. K.Karthick12. Monica Millen13. S.Libin14. M.Kalai Selvi15. J.Naveen Kumar16. A.Ashesh17. S.Bharathi Mohan18. S.Dhanalakshmi19. Ms.Shanmugapriya20. Sathish Kumar21. Hariharan22. Arun Prakash23. R.Sarath Kumar24. S.Ganesh25. K.Devika26. L.Praveen Kumar27. Bharani Dharan28. S.Amanesh29. Shalma Firdhouse29b. Shakeel Ahmed30. J.B.Karthikeyan31. Sunil Kumar32. Manoj Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

33. Hari Krishnan34. R.Ilavarasi35. D.Jagadesh Kumar36. Hemachandran37. C.Priyanka38. R.T.Divya39. KevinJoseph Sebastin40. Yogesh41. V.B.Subash Chander42. A.Vinodhini43. S.Sri Ram44. M.Maheswaran45. Jobi46. V.Vijayakumar47. M.Hariprasadh48. S.Naresh Kumar49. P.Lekha50. J.Franklin51. Debieshajk52. K.Arunkumar53. M.Guru Raja54. G.Goutham55. Banu Priya56. M.Jayakumar57. R.Balasaravanan58. P.Saravanan59. Winston Benjamin60. P.Vinothkumar61. R.THeepankarthik62. S.Jagadeesh63. Murugan64. R.Jeevanandham65. D.Nirmala66. T.S.Suganya67. B.Veikarathy ...Petitioners in WP.19990/2007Priyanga. S. ... Petitioner inWP.20351 /2007K.S.Prasana Kumar ... Petitioner inWP.20352/2007Hemanth Kumar,K. ... Petitioner inWP.20353/2007M.Saravana Pandian ... Petitioner inWP.20354/2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ -vs-1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, School Education, St.George Fort, Chennai- 9.2. The Director of Matric Education, College Road, Chennai-6.3. The Chairman, Velammal Matric Higher Secondary School, Mogappair East, Chennai-600 037. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ ofmandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to direct the thirdrespondent to admit the petitioners for the XI standard educationfor the Academic Year 2007-2008 in the third respondent schoolbefore accommodating the outside students from the other schools byfollowing the ratio decidendi laid down in the judgment of theSupreme Court reported in JT 1995 (6) SC 101 and pass such otherfurther orders.For petitioners :: Mr.Hema Sampath, SC for Mr.E.Martin JeyakumarFor respondents :: Mr.M.Sekar, Spl.G.P. (E) for R2 Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, GP for R1 Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, SC for Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel for R3 O R D E R(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) The petitioners are the students of the third respondentschool. The third respondent school is a recognised private schooland is under the control and supervision of the first and secondrespondents. The petitioners herein are the students who havesuccessfully completed their X Standard Matriculation Education inthe third respondent school in the last Academic Year. It is thecase of the petitioners that the petitioners having successfullycompleted their X Standard Examination, submitted theirapplications to join in the XI Standard with the legitimateexpectation and hope that they will be permitted to continue their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ higher secondary education in the third respondent school itself.The petitioners were patiently awaiting on the hope that the schoolwill not weed out their own students for any reason. But to theirshock and surprise, the third respondent school started admittingthe students who have studied in other schools by receiving hugedonations. It is the further case of the petitioners that when theygot the knowledge of admission made by the third respondent, theyrushed to the office of the third respondent and requested to admitthe students who completed their X Standard in the same school. Butthe school authorities simply threatened the petitioners to get outof the school and wait in the entrance stating that after admittingthe fresh students only the old students will be accommodated inthe remaining seats. Having patiently waited at the entrance fortwo days, on 07.6.2007, the petitioners requested the schoolauthorities to admit their own students. But the school authoritiessimply informed that they will not be admitted in the thirdrespondent school and directed them to approach some other schoolfor admission. The petitioners contend that the act of the thirdrespondent in not admitting their own students in XI Standard isviolative of the petitioners' right to education guaranteed underArticle 41 and Article 21 of the Constitution, which is inclusiveof education. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the SupremeCourt in The Principal, Cambridge School -vs- Ms.Payal Gupta &Others (JT 1995 (6) S.C. 101), where the Supreme Court has laiddown that the students from other schools could be considered foradmission only after accommodating the students of its own school.2. On behalf of the third respondent school, the Principal ofthe school has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that everyyear, the third respondent issues advertisement calling foradmission from LKG to X Standard based on the vacancies and for XIStandard from all other schools including the third respondentschool and the admissions are made based on the marks obtained bythe students on conducting an interview and all the admissions aremade only on merits. It is stated that during the Academic Year2006-2007, the third respondent school had 975 students in the XStandard and all have passed out successfully. It is stated thatfor the Academic Year 2007-2008, the third respondent issuedadvertisements in leading newspapers calling for applications forall the classes including XI standard and in all 2713 applicationswere received. Out of the 975 students who appeared forMatriculation Examination during the year 2007 from the thirdrespondent school, only 800 students opted to join the thirdrespondent school and submitted their applications. The thirdrespondent school sent intimation of the interview to all thestudents and the interview was conducted by a panel of teachersfrom the school for all the students who applied for XI Standard.As on 9.6.2007, 632 students out of 800 students, who applied forXI Standard from the third respondent school got selected and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ admitted. It is stated that this year all the admissions relatingto 1200 seats available with the third respondent school have beenmade by issuing regular admission to nearly 1151 students on meritaccording to their ranking and the remaining 49 seats are to befilled up. However, there are 49 candidates in the wait list, whoare waiting to get admission. It is submitted that 18 petitionersalso got selected by the third respondent school on 09.6.2007. Thecase of the petitioners that the third respondent threatened thepetitioners to go out of the school was denied as false, incorrectand misleading. It is stated that the admissions are made as perthe policy of the school and there is no infirmity or illegality inthe process of admission.3. We have heard Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counselappearing for the petitioners; Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learnedGovernment Pleader appearing for the first respondent; Mr.M.Sekar,learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing for thesecond respondent and Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counselappearing for the third respondent school.4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitionerssubmitted that the petitioners have passed Standard X Examination,whereby they have become eligible to be admitted to Standard XI asa matter of course and without any further admission test. LearnedSenior Counsel further submitted that the third respondent schoolis one and integral body and having four streams, namely, Primary,Middle, High and Higher Secondary. So for all practical purposes,these different streams are nothing but part and parcel of the sameorganisation, namely, the third respondent school. It is furthersubmitted that there was no stipulation or condition that thestudents have to pass admission test for entering Higher Secondarylevel. Such a notice was never published nor given to any of theguardians of the students. Therefore, it was the legitimate and/orreasonable expectation that the students who have passed X Standardwould be admitted in the XI Standard without having any furthertest. Learned Senior Counsel urged that the same school havingdifferent streams cannot be allowed to hold furtherexamination/test for admission to XI Standard. In support of hersubmission, she placed heavy reliance on the decision of theSupreme Court in The Principal, Cambridge School -vs- Ms.PayalGupta & Others (supra). Reliance is also placed on the decision ofthis court in Sundaravel, P.A.M. -vs- The Chief EducationalOfficer, etc. (1998 Writ L.R. 565) and the decision of the GujaratHigh Court in R.K.Rathod -vs- Principal, Shree K.N.S.M.V. HighSchool (AIR 2000 Gujarat 60) and also the decision of CalcuttaHigh Court in Debasish Kar Gupta -vs- State of W.B. (AIR 1999Calcutta 300). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Mr.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe third respondent submitted that the school has every right totake a policy decision regarding admission of the students inHigher Secondary stream. It is contended by the learned SeniorCounsel that higher secondary is separate and distinct from otherwings as they are being administered by two different statutorybodies and had no connection with each other. It is pointed out bythe learned Senior Counsel that upto X Standard, the school isgoverned by the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools,whereas the XI Standard and XII Standard are governed by the Rulesfor the Recognition of Higher Secondary Schools. Learned SeniorCounsel submitted that the Section VII of the Rules for theRecognition of Higher Secondary Schools contemplates selection forentry to XI Standard and the school has carried out the selectionprocess based on the marks obtained by the students. According tothe learned Senior Counsel no law has been framed by the Governmentrequiring automatic admission of the student from X Standard to XIStandard. In the absence of such specific law on this point, theschool has been following its own admission policy, which isstrictly based on merits. 6. Learned Special Government Pleader representing the StateGovernment supported the case of the petitioners. He submitted thatthe same school having different streams cannot be allowed to holdfurther examination for admission to XI Standard. He submitted thatthe third respondent cannot admit students from other schoolsunless the existing students who have passed the X Standardexaminations are admitted. He submitted that the State Governmenthas issued G.O.Ms.No.216, dated 11.6.2007 directing all the HigherSecondary Schools that admission of the student from class X toClass XI within the same school should not be treated as a freshadmission but only as a continuation of the original admission donein that school. All such students should be admitted in Class XI asfar as possible subject to the availability of seats and studentsfrom other schools should be considered only after accommodatingthe students from their own schools. 7. The third respondent school is a recognised unaided school.The school has got four streams, viz., Primary (I to V); Middle (VIto VIII); High School (IX and X) and Higher Secondary (XI and XII).Standard I to Standard X are governed by the Code of Regulationsfor Matriculation Schools, whereas the XI Standard and XII Standardare governed by the Rules for the Recognition of Higher SecondarySchools. The principal submission on behalf of the schoolauthorities is that since two different Codes are applicable todifferent streams, they should be treated as two differentorganisations and entities. Therefore, the school is entitled toadopt any policy for admission to XI Standard Higher Secondarystream and the policy which has been adopted by the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent school is just and fair and there has been no complaintin the past. In this connection, Mr.Muthukumaraswamy drew ourattention to the observation of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.PaiFoundation -vs- State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481) that unaidededucational institutions must have the right to choose and selectthe students who can be admitted to their courses of studies. Thesubmission of the learned Senior Counsel is that though aneducational institution cannot grant admission on its whims andfancies and has to follow some identifiable or reasonablemethodology of admitting the students, any scheme, which providesfor merit based admission cannot be termed as illegal or arbitrary.We are afraid that the observation made in T.M.A.Pai Foundation'scase, cited supra, sought to be relied upon by the learned counselis not relevant in the fact situation of the case. The issueinvolved in the present case is whether the existing students ofthe school who have studied in the school right from Standard I toStandard X can be denied admission for the XI Standard solely onthe basis that there are two different and distinct streamsgoverned by two different regulations. There is no dispute thatthere is only one school viz., respondent - 3 and that school isone entity managed by the same management and it has got differentsections. The provision of two different sets of regulationsrelating to education do not provide for separate and differentlegal entities. The third respondent school is a single entityunder whom all the four streams are functioning. We hasten to addthat the Rules for the Recognition of Higher Secondary Schools,which lay down the eligibility criteria for admission to the XIStandard, nowhere contemplate that the outside students can beselected ignoring the claims of the existing students from the XStandard. 8. The scope of passing X Standard and readmission to XIStandard came for consideration before the Supreme Court in ThePrincipal, Cambridge School -vs- Ms.Payal Gupta & Others (citedsupra). The question that came for consideration was, whether astudent who passed X Standard can be denied admission to XIStandard, when the student is not putting an end to his studies inthat school. In that case, the school authorities, with a view toachieve a high percentage of competency and to upgrade the academicstandard, issued various circulars, and one such circular was thatadmission to XI Standard shall not be automatic and the student ofClass X must obtain 50% marks in aggregate in the Board Examinationfor getting readmission in Class XI. In other words, it would be afresh admission even to those students who passed X Standardobtaining the minimum marks of 50% in the aggregate. Inspite ofthe fact that the Deputy Education Officer directed that allstudents of Class X should be admitted into Class XI without anypass percentage, the school authorities refused to yield.Challenging the direction to receive the School Leaving https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Certificate, parents filed writ petition before the Delhi HighCourt. Argument on behalf of the school authorities was based onSchool Education Rules which provided that the Head of any unaidedrecognised school shall regulate admissions to the school or to anyclass thereof on the basis of admission test or on the basis ofresult of a particular class or school and the said rule thus notonly takes within its fold the cases of re-admission but the casesof promotion are also covered. In that case also, the CambridgeSchool was an unaided recognised school. The court held that ClassX examination, though public examination, does not make anydifference and the question of readmission would arise only if thestudent goes to some other institution. The court further observedthat the question of admission test on the basis of result in aparticular class will not be taken into account in the case of astudent of the same school. The decision of the Delhi High Courtquashing the circulars was upheld.9. In Sundaravel P.A.M. -vs- The Chief Educational Officeretc. (cited supra), the learned single Judge of this court(S.S.Subramani, J.) upon construing the provisions of the TamilNadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act held that studentspassing X standard and seeking admission for XI Standard cannot bedenied admission for the XI Standard and outside students cannot beadmitted unless the students from the same school are givenadmission in the XI Standard. The learned Judge also expresslyrejected the argument of the Management that it is only a privateschool and no aid was received from the Government and hence nowrit could be issued. In Debasish Kar Gupta -vs- State of W.B.(cited supra), the school had three streams and the management haddenied admission for students to VII Standard, who have otherwisesuccessfully passed VI Standard examination. The case of the schoolwas that the school from VII Standard was a different stream and itwas governed by different laws and, therefore, the school hadrightly regarded this as a fresh admission for the VII Standard.The learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court rejected thestand of the Management following the decision of the Supreme Courtin The Principal, Cambridge School -vs- Ms.Payal Gupta & Others(supra) and held that the students are entitled to admission to VIIStandard as a matter of course since once at the beginning upontest and interview they were admitted. Similar is the view taken bythe Gujarat High Court in R.K.Rathod -vs- Principal, ShreeK.N.S.M.V.High School (cited supra).10. In our opinion, in the light of the law laid down by theSupreme Court in The Principal, Cambridge School -vs- Ms.PayalGupta & Others the right of the present petitioners to seekadmission in the very same school from which they have passed thepublic examination of X Standard cannot be defeated solely on theground that the students coming from other schools have obtained https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ higher marks in the last public examination. No centralisedadmission policy in this regard has been followed so as to beapplicable to such schools all over the State. In the absence ofsuch a centralised policy for admission based on all over merit ofall the students passing the X Standard public examination fromvarious schools all over the state, it cannot be left open to theschools to deny admission to students of their own school bychoosing the students from other schools for admission in the XIStandard. As the students have passed their qualifying examination,they are entitled to be admitted in XI Standard subject to theavailability of seats and the students from other schools can beconsidered only after accommodating students of their own school.In this behalf it would be useful to refer to G.O.Ms.No.126, SchoolEducation (V) Department, dated 11.6.2007 wherein the Governmentreiterated the following court directions issued on 09.6.2007:(a)Admission of a student from Class X to Class XI withinthe same school should not be treated as a freshadmission but only as continuation of the originaladmission done in that school. So issuing transfercertificate to Class X students within the same schooland readmitting them to Class XI is against the rules.(b)All the students of the same school who have qualifiedin Class X Board Examination should be offeredadmission in Class XI as far as possible subject tothe availability of seats. The schools may considerstudents from other schools for admission afteraccommodating the students of their own school.(c)No admission test should be conducted by schools fortheir own students. After admitting their own studentsif there are still vacancies, they may be filledeither on the basis of the Class X Board Examinationsor by conducting an admission test for the studentswho are from other schools.(d)No school should prescribe any cut-off marks foradmission to class XI or for allotment of subjects." 11. Mr.Muthukumaraswamy, however submitted and not withoutsufficient force that the admission process in the third respondentschool is almost over; all seats are filled up and the managementhas not accepted fees from 49 students due to the interim orderpassed by this court. He submitted that only three petitionersnamely., 1) Banupriya 2) M.Hari Prasad 3) Joby Joji areentitled to have the subject of their choice as per the merit listand they will be given admission to the subjects for which theyapplied. He submitted that the school has been following thispolicy of admission for the last several years and if the interimdirections are strictly enforced, there will be total chaoscausing serious prejudice especially to the outside students whoare already admitted. He suggested that for this year the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent school will create an additional division in CommerceStream in its branch at Mogappair to accommodate the petitionersand other similarly situated students. The Government has also noobjection for creation of additional class in view of theexigencies of the situation. 12. The writ petitions are allowed accordingly. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.js/sm To 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, School Education, St.George Fort, Chennai- 9.2. The Director of Matric Education, College Road, Chennai-6.3. The Chairman, Velammal Matric Higher Secondary School, Mogappair East, Chennai-600 037. W.P.Nos.19990, 20351 to20354 of 2007and M.P.Nos.1 to 3, 1+1+1+1 of 2007 NSM (CO)kk 4/7