Madras High Court

The Correspondence vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 4 January, 2022

W.P.No.28424 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.28424 of 2019

The Correspondence
St. Marys Primary School
Represented by Mr.J.Charleskennadi
S/o. Joseph,
Nagavayal Padathanpatti Post,
Kallal Via, Kaikudi Taluk,
Sivagangai District-630 305. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Secretariat School Education Department,
Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

2. The Director,
Directorate Elementary School Education,
DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai 600 009.

3. The District Primary School Educational Officer,
Sivagangai Collectorate
Manamadurai, Sivangangai District 630 562.

4. The Assistant Primary School Education Officer,
Kallal, Sivangangai District. ...Respondents

1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28424 of 2019

Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Directing the 2nd

respondents to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of

the proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 025371 / g3 / 2018 dated 02.04.2019 and

quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent herein to implement

the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.752 (Education Science and

Technology Department) dated 02.09.1994 and following the 1st

respondent proceedings order in Ne.Mu.Ka No. 36566 /d 1/2001-1 dated

21.11.2003 further direct the 3rd respondent to comply the 2nd

respondent proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 557 / tho.k.j / 2002 dated

25.02.2002 and to grant permanent recognition with grant aid of

St.Marys Primary school running by the management at Nagavayal

Padathanpatti Post Kallal Via Karaikudi Taluk, Sivaganga District.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Selvakkodi

For Respondents : Mr. Stalin Abimanyu
Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28424 of 2019

Challenging the order passed by the second respondent, whereby

the petitioner school's request for grant of permanent recognition was

negatived, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner's school was started in the year 1989

with a temporary recognition for a period of three years.

According to the petitioner, the school was started with

the sole aim of eradicating illiteracy and to ensure that

every child should get education. It is the case of the

petitioner that they did not charge any fees from any

students studying in their school.

3. While that being so, in the year 1989, the third respondent

recommended two teachers for the petitioner's school. Since no

follow-up action was taken, the second respondent was directed the third

respondent to file a compliance report. During the year 1993, the

Government appointed three persons viz., Cook-officer, Cook-master

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28424 of 2019

and Assistant cook-master and the petitioner's school appointed other

office bearers and teachers, because of the non-support from the

Government, the Government was losing students and the strength

becoming thinner and thinner. The Government continued to renew the

periodical temporary recognition once in every three years.

4. In the meanwhile, the first respondent issued a Government

Order in G.O. Ms. No. 752 dated 02.09.1994 granting permanent

recognition to schools, those who are running for 10 or more years. The

Government order stipulated that the schools should produce stability

certificate in respect of the school buildings. According to the petitioner,

though the petitioner's school submitted the relevant structural soundness

certificate, the permanent permission was not granted to them.

5. However, the first respondent issued order in

Na.Ka.No.Ne.Mu.Ka.No.36566/d 1/2001-1 dated 21.11.2003 to the

second respondent to issue permanent recognition for the schools

running for more than ten years. Since the same is not complied with by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28424 of 2019

the second respondent, the petitioner's school has filed the present writ

petition before this Court in W.P.No.26623 of 2018 seeking a direction

upon the second respondent to comply with the order of the first

respondent. This Court vide order dated 29.10.2018 issued a direction to

the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation

of the petitioner dated 12.04.2018, after giving an opportunity to the

petitioner, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of that order.

6. In response thereto, the learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondents viz., Education Department

justified the impugned order and submitted that it is not the number of

years that should be taken into consideration, but number of students

studying in the school should be taken into consideration. Even after 30

years, the petitioner's school is functioning upto class I to Class V,

wherein there are 17 students studying at present. This shows that the

petitioner's school is not serious in imparting education but only with the

aim of seeking permanent recognition from the Government, the school

is being run by them. The respondents have also filed a detailed counter

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28424 of 2019

in this regard. Accordingly, the learned Additional Government Pleader

prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Heard both sides, and perused the materials available on record.

8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government

Pleader rather than going by number of years, number of students

studying in the school at present has to be taken into consideration. The

petitioner's school conducting classes only I standard to V standard. But

there were only 17 students studying in the school. This shows that the

school does not have sufficient number of dedicated teachers or staff to

run the school. The petitioner's school claims to have obtained periodical

temporary recognition once in every three years in view of the fact that

no strength of students can be accepted during the initial period of

functioning of the school and that the institution is functioning for the 30

long years. However, even after 30 years, the petitioner's institution

could not attract more students and only 17 students studying in the

school, which shows the petitioner's school is in a poor light.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28424 of 2019

9. A useful reference of Section 14A of Tamil Nadu Recognized

Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 is extracted hereunder:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any decree, order or direction of any court or other authority,--

(i) no private school shall, only on the ground of having been granted recognition under this Act, be entitled to any grant or other financial assistance from the Government;

(ii) The Government may, subject to:--

(a) the availability of funds;

(b) the norms and conditions specified in the Grant-in-

aid Code of Tamil Nadu Education Department;

(c) the condition that every private school receiving any grant or financial assistance from the Government levies and collects from the pupils only such fee, charge or other payment as may be specified by the competent authority, which shall not be in excess of the fee, charge or other payment, levied and collected from the pupils studying in the schools or institutions established and administered or maintained by the State Government, or any local authority in the locality;

(d) the rules, orders and notifications issued by the Government from time to time; and

(e) such other conditions as may be prescribed.

[Pay to the private school grant or other financial assistance at such rate and for such purposes as may be prescribed)''

10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28424 of 2019

Government Pleader that the payment of aid schools is based on the

years issued from time to time. Like wise, the power to grant aid includes

power not to grant aid and the right to refuse or to withdraw any grant is

at the discretion of the government. This court is in agreement with the

submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that aid is no

automatic and that right to receive aid is not a fundamental right. The

learned Additional Government Pleader drew attention of this Court to

the judgment of this Court dated 07.10.2021 in the case of Sri

Kumaragurubara Swamigal Middle School Vs. the Secretary to

Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai

and others in W.P.No.30796 of 2019. In this case, the petitioner therein

had sought a protection upon the respondents therein to grant aid to the

petitioner's school by sanctioning teaching posts for the upgraded middle

school.

11. The relevant paragraph of the order in W.P.No.30796 of 2019

dated 07.10.2021, is extracted hereunder:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28424 of 2019

''On a reading of the above provision, it is clear that no grant will be paid to any private school established/opened on or after the academic year 1991-1992. In the present case, the petitioner was already receiving aid for standards 1 to 5. The upgradation into a middle school with standards 5 to 8 was sanctioned with effect from academic year 1990-199. This sanction was given with a specific condition that the petitioner school will not be given with a specific condition that the petitioner school will not be given educational grant for a period of three years. Therefore, when the petitioner was seeking for a grant, after the expiry of three years, the respondents relied upon Section 14-A(b) of the Act and the same was put against the petitioner. This Clause dealt with any private schools in existence to which no grant was already paid by the Government before the commencement of the academic year 1991-1992. It must be borne in mind that the constitutional validy of Section 14-A of the Act, has been upheld by this Court in Maria Grace Rural Middle School , rep. By its Correspondent Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary and others reported in (2007 2 MLJ 497).''

12. This Court is in full agreement with the views expressed by the

learned single Judge in the above quoted order. This Court does not find

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28424 of 2019

any interference in the order passed by the second respondent. In view of

the above discussions, this Writ petition fails and therefore, dismissed.

No costs.

04.01.2022

Index: yes / no Internet : yes / no Speaking / Non speaking order

rli

To 1 The Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat School Education Department, Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

2 The Director, Directorate Elementary School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai 600 009.

3 The District Primary School Educational Officer, Sivagangai Collectorate Manamadurai, Sivangangai District 630 562.