LAWS(MAD)-2016-11-143

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SIVAGANGAI VIANNEY PASTORAL CENTER MADURAI ROAD, SIVAGANGAI SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI

Decided On November 04, 2016
The Superintendent Of Schools Roman Catholic Diocese Of Sivagangai Vianney Pastoral Center Madurai Road, Sivagangai Sivagangai District Appellant
V/S
The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its Secretary Department Of School Education Fort St.George, Chennai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner-School has filed this writ petition against the show cause notice, in Na.Ka. No.3367/A5/2008, dated 04.06.2008, issued by the sixth respondent, calling for explanation as to why the recognition and grant-in-aid granted to their School as per the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Grant-in-Aid) Rules, 1977 and Tamil Nadu Educational Grant-in-Aid Rules Rules shall not be stopped.

(2.) The case of the petitioner-School is that the courses and curriculum of their School have been regulated by the instructions issued by the Government from time to time and the staff were appointed as per the qualifications prescribed by the Government and accordingly grant-in-aid was also given.

(3.) That on 04.06.2008, the sixth respondent/District Elementary Educational Officer, Sivagangai District, issued a show-cause notice to the Correspondent of the petitioner-School stating that on 02.06.2008, when the third respondent/District Collector, Sivagangai District, had visited the petitioner School, he found the Headmaster of the School received a sum of Rs.100.00 as bribe from the 8th standard student, namely, Thanasekar, for issuing record sheet and hence, the third respondent/District Collector had directed the sixth respondent to take action against the Headmaster and to suspend him. Pursuant to the strong instructions issued by the third respondent, the sixth respondent directed the petitioner to take action against the Headmaster. Since no action was taken in spite of the matter being published in Newspapers, the impugned order came to be issued.