D ARAVINTH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the students of the third respondent school. The third respondent school is a recognised private school and is under the control and supervision of the first and second respondents. The petitioners herein are the students who have successfully completed their x Standard Matriculation Education in the third respondent school in the last Academic year. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners having successfully completed their X Standard Examination, submitted their applications to join in the XI standard with the legitimate expectation and hope that they will be permitted to continue their higher secondary education in the third respondent school itself. The petitioners were patiently awaiting on the hope that the school will not weed out their own students for any reason. But to their shock and surprise, the third respondent school started admitting the students who have studied in other schools by receiving huge donations. It is the further case of the petitioners that when they got the knowledge of admission made by the third respondent, they rushed to the office of the third respondent and requested to admit the students who completed their X Standard in the same school. But the school authorities simply threatened the petitioners to get out of the school and wait in the entrance stating that after admitting the fresh students only the old students will be accommodated in the remaining seats. Having patiently waited at the entrance for two days, on 7-6-2007, the petitioners requested the school authorities to admit their own students. But the school authorities simply informed that they will not be admitted in the third respondent school and directed them to approach some other school for admission. The petitioners contend that the act of the third respondent in not admitting their own students in XI standard is violative of the petitioners' right to education guaranteed under Article 41 and Article 21 of the Constitution, which is inclusive of education. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in The principal, C), where the Supreme Court has laid down that the students from other schools could be considered for admission only after accommodating the students of its own school.

(2.) ON behalf of the third respondent school, the Principal of the school has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that every year, the third respondent issues advertisement calling for admission from LKG to X standard based on the vacancies and for XI standard from all other schools including the third respondent school and the admissions are made based on the marks obtained by the students on conducting an interview and all the admissions are made only on merits. It is stated that during the Academic year 2006-2007, the third respondent school had 975 students in the X Standard and all have passed out successfully. It is stated that for the Academic Year 2007-2008, the third respondent issued advertisements in leading newspapers calling for applications for all the classes including XI standard and in all 2713 applications were received. Out of the 975 students who appeared for Matriculation Examination during the year 2007 from the third respondent school, only 800 students opted to join the third respondent school and submitted their applications. The third respondent school sent intimation of the interview to all the students and the interview was conducted by a panel of teachers from the school for all the students who applied for XI Standard. As on 9-6-2007, 632 students out of 800 students, who applied for XI Standard from the third respondent school got selected and admitted. It is stated that this year all the admissions relating to 1200 seats available with the third respondent school have been made by issuing regular admission to nearly 1151 students on merit according to their ranking and the remaining 49 seats are to be filled up. However, there are 49 candidates in the wait list, who are waiting to get admission. It is submitted that 18 petitioners also got selected by the third respondent school on 9-6-2007. The case of the petitioners that the third respondent threatened the petitioners to go out of the school was denied as false, incorrect and misleading. It is stated that the admissions are made as per the policy of the school and there is no infirmity or illegality in the process of admission.

(3.) WE have heard Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent; Mr. M. Sekar, learned Special government Pleader (Education) appearing for the second respondent and Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent school.