The School Committee Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Committee Higher Secondary School TN Pudukudi v. The Joint Director, Dept of School Education, DPI Compound

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 14.03.2012CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANW.P.(MD) Nos.11814 of 2011 and 12542 of 2011The School CommitteeHindu Nadar Uravinmurai Committee Higher Secondary SchoolTN Pudukudi,Rep by its SecretaryR.RathinavelpandianPuliangudi, Tirunelveli District.... Petitioner inW.P.11814The School CommitteeHindu Nadar Uravinmurai Committee Primary SchoolTN Pudukudi,Rep by its SecretaryR.RathinavelpandianPuliangudi, Tirunelveli District. ...Petitioner inW.P.No.12542vs.1.The Joint Director, Dept of School Education, DPI Compound, Chennai.2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.3.The District Educational Officer, Tenkasi Educational District, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.4.D.Mariappan, S/o.Devnadar Sivaram Nadar 2nd street, TN Pudukudi Village, Puliangudi, Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents in both W.Ps.Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a writs of Mandamus to forbear therespondents 1 to 3 from interfering in the administration of the HinduNadar Uravinmurai Committee Higher Secondary School Committee TNPudukudi, in accordance with proceedings dated 31.12.2009 inNa.Ka.No.1788/Aa3/2008 and dated 28.07.2010 in Mu.Mu.No.4918/A1/10 andnot to interfere in the administration in the petitioner School Committeeon the basis of the illegal undated communication of 4th respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2For Petitioner:Mr.S.SundarFor Respondents:Mrs.S.Bharathifor R1 to R3 Government Advocatefor R4Mr.G.VasudevanCOMMON ORDER By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up forfinal disposal.2. Heard Mr.S.Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner,Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents1 to 3 and Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.3. These writ petitions have been filed for a mandamus forbearingthe respondents 1 to 3 from interfering in the administration of theHindu Uravinmurai Committee Primary and Higher Secondary School, TNPudukudi, in accordance with the proceedings dated 28.07.2010 and31.12.2009 and not to interfere in the administration of the petitionerSchool Committee on the basis of illegal undated communication of thefourth respondent.4. The case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions in anutshell is as follows:The petitioner School was started by the T.N.Pudukudi Hindu NadarUravinmurai Mahimi Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee')in the year 1982 and a separate Committee was registered under theSocieties Registration Act for the purpose of managing the school and theschool was recognized in the year 1983 vide proceedings dated 05.10.1983and in the year 1985, the school was upgraded to higher secondary school.The government has granted aid to the school for both high school andhigher secondary school. Thereafter, for the effective administration ofthe school, the Committee decided to amend the by law and the same waseffected in the year 2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

34.1. According to the petitioner, he was elected as Administrativecouncil of the Committee and 18 members of the administrative council ofthe Committee along with the office bearers, are responsible for theadministration of the Committee and the Committee unanimously selectedthe petitioner as Secretary of the School Committee from 02.12.2009 forthe period of three years, which was ratified by the school authoritiesby their proceedings dated 31.12.2009. While that being so, the fourthrespondent issued an undated letter to the Secretary of the schoolstating that as per the resolution, he was appointed as President of theCommittee and he has also sent copies to the official respondents.Pursuant to the same, the petitioner had sent a representation on07.10.2010 to the respondents 1 to 3 denying the illegal activities ofthe fourth respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that neitherthe administrative council nor the Committee has passed resolution on14.09.2011 and 22.09.2011 by allowing the fourth respondent to hold thepost of President and the act of the fourth respondent is contrary torule 12(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Rules(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). While that being so, the thirdrespondent made an oral enquiry about the letter sent by the fourthrespondent and asked the petitioner to give explanation and furtherstates that they are going to pass an order of direct payment under theAct and Rules. In similar circumstances, when a letter sent by oneAnanthan, who is said to have been proclaimed as the Secretary, waschallenged before this Court and this Court set aside the same. However,the third respondent herein has refused to pass the salary bill for thestaff of the school. Hence, the petitioner has come before this Courtfor the relief as stated earlier. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

45. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent,wherein, it is contended that the petitioner is a sub Committee appointedas School Committee and as such it is not a corporate body to file a writpetition and it is only a constituted body appointed by the EducationalAgency, namely the Committee. It is their contention that as per Rule12, the School Committee has to be recognized by the respondents 1 to 3and they have no power to select the School Committee, which has to beconstituted as per the by laws of the educational agency. It is theirfurther case that one P.Mariappan has been removed from the post ofPresident and the agency has unanimously appointed the fourth respondentas President of the School Committee and the same has been placed forapproval before the third respondent and pray for dismissal of the writpetition. 6. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioners is that by virtue of the resolution passed on 14.09.2011 and22.09.2011, the fourth respondent has been allowed to hold the Presidentof the School Committee. Therefore, under Rule 12(4) of the Ruleswithout prior approval, the fourth respondent cannot have a right to holdthe decision on the basis that now the respondents 1 to 3 are attemptingto interfere with the administration of the petitioner School Committee. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate, by pointingout the statement made in the counter, would submit that it is totallywrong that the third respondent has neither visited the school forenquiry nor interfering in the administration of the School Committee. 8. Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, wouldsubmit that the petitioner is not the aggrieved person in view of theunanimous resolution taken on 14.09.2011 and therefore, he has no locus-standi to come before this Court in a premature state and only on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5following the Rules, the respondents 1 to 3 will proceed further andtherefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused thematerial documents annexed in the typed set of papers. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner is a School Committee of Hindu NadarUravinmurai Committee primary and Higher Secondary school of TN Pudukudi,Tirunelveli District and they are functioning as per the Tamil NaduPrivate Schools Regulations Act and the said Rules are in force. There isan educational agency to deal with the affairs of the School Committeeand got the power to change the position with the prior approval of thecompetent authority. It is pleaded by the parties that one P.Mariappan,was the President as per the approval proceedings inMu.Mu.No.4918/A1/2010 dated 28.07.2010. Now, the Educational agency hasunanimously decided in the School Committee meeting on 14.09.2011 toremove the said P.Mariappan from the post of President of the SchoolCommittee and appointed the fourth respondent as the President of theSchool Committee and it is for the concerned Educational Agency to takeappropriate steps to go before the competent authority for further actionin this matter. At this point of time, the petitioner is before thisCourt contemplating that there may be a disturbance from the respondents1 to 3 and apprehending the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 11. Now, the official respondent has filed their counter makingclear averments that it is totally wrong that the third respondentvisited the school for enquiry of the other matter, which is not relatedto the School Committee. The third respondent has never selected eitherthe President or given any opinion regarding the dispute over the SchoolCommittee. The petitioner failed to prove the facts in this matter,which should be turned down and it is not believable. Further at page https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6No.6, the following averments are made, which is as follows:“The fourth respondent has to fulfill theconditions prescribed as per rules to approve thechange of either president or Secretary. In the abovecircumstances, there is no need to the departmentofficials to interfere with the school administrationwithout any facts and figure for such action.”Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is dispelled in view of thespecific averments made in the counter.12. In the above circumstances, the mandamus sought for by thepetitioner to forbear them from interfering in the administration of theschool does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, these writpetitions are disposed of by recording the above statement in thecounter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI)/True Copy/ Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Joint Director, Dept of School Education, DPI Compound, Chennai.2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.3.The District Educational Officer, Tenkasi Educational District, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. +1CC TO MR.MADHAVAN, ADVOCATE, SR NO.8372 +1CC TO MR.S.KADARKARAI, ADVOCATE, SR NO.8173 W.P.(MD) Nos.12542 and 11814 of 2011RR and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011PJR:16.04.12:6p/6c:14.03.2012