Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Arokia Annai Middle School on 28 November, 2023
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
Writ Appeal No.3731 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
Writ Appeal No.3731 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.23703 of 2019
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its,
Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
3. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
4. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Tiruchendur Range, Tiruchendur and Post,
Tuticorin District. ... Appellants
Vs
Arokia Annai Middle School,
Adailakapuram, Tuticorin District,
Rep. By its Correspondent,
Rev.Fr. Antony Jagadeesan ... Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/10
Writ Appeal No.3731 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 10.11.2010 made in W.P.No.2324 of 2005 by
allowing the writ appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
for Ms.P.Mahalakshmi
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR,J.)
This appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ
Court dated 10.11.2010 made in W.P.No.2324 of 2005.
2. The respondent school was established in the year 1968 as a
Primary School i.e., for Ist standard to Vth standard. It was an aided
school, teaching staffs were allotted and the school had been functioning.
In the year 1988, the school has been upgraded into Middle school
adding classes from VIth to VIIIth standards, for which since there was a
need of appointment of teachers for handling classes from VIth to VIIIth
standards, in respect of which, sanction was sought for, which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rejected by the first appellant i.e., Government vide order dated
17.11.2004, which has been wrongly mentioned as 12.11.2003. In the
said order, the following has been stated by the first appellant:
@ghh;it xd;wpy; fz;Ls;s j';fs;
tpz;zg;gj;jpy; j';fs; gs;spf;F 6 Kjy; 8
tFg;g[fSf;F epjp cjtp mspj;J jw;rkak; epjp
cjtpa[ld; 1 Kjy; 5 tFg;g[fspy; gzpg[hpe;J
tUk; 9 Mrphpah; gzpapl';fisa[k; 1 Kjy; 8
tFg;g[fSf;F eph;zak; bra;J MizpaLkhWk;.
,jidj; bjhlh;e;J jh';fs; brd;id
cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; bjhLj;Js;s chpikg;
nguhiz tHf;fpy; (vz;/29998-03) ,k;kD kPJ 5
khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; Miz btspapLkhW
mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/
2/ ,e;epiyapy;. gzpaplk; tH';ff; nfhUk;
j';fspd; tpz;zg;gk; ghprPypf;fg;gl;ljpy;
murhiz (epiy) vz;/525 gs;spf; fy;tp ehs;
29/12/97d; go j';fs; gs;spapy; khzth;
tpfpjhr;rhuk; Vw;g[ilajhf ,y;yhj fhuzj;jhy;
j';fsJ nfhhpf;ifia Vw;gjw;fpy;iy
vd;gijj; j';fSf;F bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;
gzpf;fg;gl;Ls;nsd;/@
3. Challenging the said order, the writ petition had been filed. The
said writ petition was heard and decided by the learned Judge, where the
learned Judge having taken note of the import of G.O.Ms.No.525, School
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Education Department, dated 29.12.1997 as well as the Full Bench
Judgment of this Court in the case of Director of Elementary Education,
Chennai and Ors. Vs. S.Vigila reported in 2006 (5) CTC 385 has held
that insofar as the teacher pupil ratio of the school concerned from
classes VIth to VIIIth , minimum teachers are required to be employed for
handling classes from VIth to VIIIth standards.
4. In fact this position had been considered and the District
Elementary Educational Officer by his letter dated 14.04.2004 had
recommended to that effect to the Director, who in turn to the
Government that the additional teachers for handling classes from VIth to
VIIIth standards can be considered.
5. Despite the recommendation having been made by the District
Level officer and despite the legal position that has been reiterated by the
Full Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra, which considered
the validity of G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education Department, dated
29.12.1997, the first respondent still had chosen to reject the plea of the
school by stating the reason that the teacher pupil ratio is not in
consonance with the G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education Department,
dated 29.12.1997 and therefore, that was rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The said order having been considered was found to be
unsustainable by the learned Judge, who allowed the said writ petition.
7. Assailing the said order, the learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants would contend that, at the time of
recognition/approval was sought for by the school i.e., upgraded from
elementary school to middle school, one of the conditions that was
imposed by the competent authority that, for the upgraded classes, the
Government will not give any additional grant, when such a condition
had been imposed, de-hors of such condition and against such condition
whether the school can seek for additional grant for sanctioning of
additional teaching faculty for handling classes from VIth to VIIIth
standards was a question that was not considered by the learned Judge.
Therefore, on that ground at least the impugned order before the Writ
Court was to be sustained. Further, it has not been considered in proper
perspective, hence the impugned order is liable to be interfered with, the
learned Special Government Pleader contended.
8. However, Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent school would submit that at the time of giving approval or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
recognition for upgradation of the school in the year 1988, no such
condition has been imposed, which had been specifically averred in the
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Moreover, he has submitted
that the order dated 17.11.2004 (12.11.2003) has not stated the said
reason as has been projected by the learned Government Pleader,
therefore the impugned order before the Writ Court for the one and only
reason that is not in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education
Department, dated 29.12.1997 with regard to the teacher pupil ratio was
considered and has been found to be unsustainable by the learned Judge
of-course correctly. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent school seeks indulgence of this Court to sustain the said order
of the learned Judge by dismissing the writ appeal.
9. We have considered the said rival submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the materials
placed before this Court.
10. If at all any such conditions had been imposed at the time of
grant/recognition or approval for upgradation of the school, even
assuming such a condition has been imposed that would not take away
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the right of the school to seek for such a sanctioning of the additional
posts because under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools
(Regulation) Act, 1973, such a provision has been brought in not to give
grant any more for new schools or starting of new classes or upgradation
of the classes only later on and as on 1988, the prevailing position was
that wherever there is an aided school, where additional classes are
started or the schools are upgraded, that school is entitled to get grant
because it is on need basis the schools are being upgraded and such
upgradation once is approved by the competent authority of the
Education Department, it goes without saying that the upgradation or
expansion of the school for additional classes is for sanctioning of the in
take for which, the additional staff strength also shall be given by the
Government. This position has been changed only later on when
amendment has been made in the Act, prior to which the legal position
was that the school was entitled to get such a grant. Therefore, assuming
that if there has been any such conditions imposed at the time of grant of
approval of the upgradation of the school that would not any way take
away the right of the school to seek for such a grant and the school being
the Minority school such a right is always protected before the
amendment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. That apart, insofar as the order dated 17.11.2004(12.11.2003)
is concerned, in that order as has been extracted herein above no such
reason has been stated. The only reason stated was that the teacher pupil
ratio of the school is not in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.525, School
Education Department, dated 29.12.1997.
12. However, the fact remains that, on upgradation of the school
there were three classes added i.e., from VIth to VIIIth standards hence, as
per the G.O.Ms.No.525 as well as the full bench judgment as referred to
above in respect of each of the classes at least one teacher must be
provided, therefore, if these three classes added, three more additional
teachers definitely to be provided i.e., the import of G.O.Ms.No.525 as
well as the full bench judgment, therefore, since that has been relied
upon by the learned Judge, that approach of the learned Judge also
cannot be questioned.
13. Moreover, on 14.04.2004, the District Level Officer i.e.,
District Elementary Educational Officer has sent a recommendatory
report for sanctioning of additional teaching staffs that has also not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
properly considered either by the Director of Elementary Education or by
the Government, therefore, that aspect also since has been pointed out by
the learned Judge and for all these reasons since he has allowed the writ
petition through the impugned order, we do not find any error in the said
approach of the learned Judge and the conclusion reached by the learned
Judge.
14. Resultantly, this appeal has to fail and accordingly, it is
dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15. The needful as indicated above as per the direction of the
learned Judge in the impugned order if all has not been so far been
complied with, the same shall be complied with within a period of
three(3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(R.S.K.,J.) (G.A.M., J.)
28.11.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
mp
28.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
