STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH Vs. SAVARI CRUZ AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Pitchai started the Saraswathi, Higher Elementary School at Maninagaram, Madural in 1953. The school was gradually expanded till in 1961, it became a full fledged High School. In 1964 there were as many as 3,763 pupils and 100 teachers in the Elementary School and 837 pupils and 29 teachers in the High School. Both the Saraswathi Higher Elementary School and the High School were originally conducted in eight different buildings, one of which was Door No. 40, Maninagaram Second Street. On 4th April 1964, this building collapsed with the result that 35 students and one adult teacher died and a number of students were injured. This tragic mishap aroused public indignation, and consequently administrative steps were taken to assuage it. The Education Department refused to extend recognition to the schools beyond June 1964. The Correspondent of the Schools was prosecuted under Sec. 304 -A, Indian Penal Code and convicted by the trial Court, but the Sessions Judge of Madurai allowed the appeal, filed by Pitchai, by his judgment, dated 18th February 1966 with the following observations:

(2.) Within a week after coming to know of the admissions in the Mangayarkarasi Higher Elementary and High Schools in pursuance of the Order of the Government, Thiru Savari Cruz, the Correspondent of Veeramamunivar Vidyasala which is a Higher Elementary School and which he has been conducting since 1955 in Annathope Street, Madurai, filed two writ petitions out of which these appeals arise. In Writ Petition No. 1598 of 1967, he prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in G.O. Ms. No. 708, Education, dated 11th May 1967 and to quash the order granting restoration of recognition to the Mangayarkarasi Higher Elementary and High Schools Maninagaram. In Writ Petition No. 1341 of 1968, he asked for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Government not to give recognition to the institutions mentioned in the said G.O. The ground urged by him in support of his writ petitions were - -(i) that the restoration of recognition was in violation of rules 56 and 57 of the Madras Education Rules; (ii) that the institutions to which recognitition has been accorded are no other than the ones which had been closed down on the orders of the Government on the ground of negligence and the condition of the buildings in which the institutions, are housed is unsafe and it would be contrary to public interests to grant recognition to the institutions; and (iii) that there had been no enquiry conducted by the Educational Authorities before the order was passed and no opportunity had been given to the neighbouring schools to put forth their case and the recognition accorded is, therefore, opposed to the principles of natural justice.

(3.) The State of Madras represented by the Director of Secondary Education was impleaded as the first Respondent in both the writ petitions. It is the complaint of the Government Pleader that though time for filing a counter was asked for on behalf of the State of Madras the learned Judge Kailasam J. refused to grant time Thiru S. Palaniswami, the new CorRespondent of the Mangayarkarasi High School, was impleaded as the second Respondent in both the petitions. The second Respondent in his counter -affidavit alleged inter alia that in view of the great popularity that the Saraswathi Higher Elementary and High Schools had earned, the public of the locality who experienced difficulty in sending their children to institutions far away from home, desired the revival of the Saraswathi Higher Elementary and High Schools, and it was on account of the pressure of the public of the locality, the Government decided to restore the recognition of the school subject to the conditions laid down in the G.O. He denied that there had been any infringement of the Madras Educational Rules, which he contended were merely administrative instructions of the Government to their subordinates. He also questioned the locus standi of the Petitioner to impugn the order of the Government directing restoration of recognition.