L BHAVANIBAI Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent dated 14.10.2008 and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 14.12.2008. 2. THE second respondent Matriculation School was started with the object of providing education to the children of the members of the Co-operative Sugar Mill and the children of the staff and other persons working in the sugar mill. THE school was recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools. THE President of the Co-operative Sugar Mills is the Correspondent of the School who is also the appointing authority in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff. 2(a). THE petitioner was appointed as a trained graduate teacher in the 2nd respondent school on 10.7.1995. It is her case that even after regularisation of her services, salary was not paid as per Pay Commission and it has been reduced to consolidated pay from 1.4.2002. She has been in charge of Scouts and Junior Red Cross and therefore, her presence is required in the school premises and the second respondent has allotted quarters No,4 in the proceedings dated 14.9.1995 on the rent of Rs.20/- per month apart from electricity charges and on 17.7.1997, at the request of the second respondent, the petitioner vacated the quarters and thereafter, she made representation to provide quarters to enable her to concentrate on scout movements. 2(b). By order dated 11.12.2001, the second respondent allotted quarters No,27 in C-1 quarters on monthly rent of Rs.300/- apart from electricity charges and the said rent was subsequently reduced to Rs.250/- p.m. and then to Rs.125/- p.m. since her scale of pay was reduced as consolidated pay. She filed writ petition to implement the Central Pay Commission pay scale and the said writ petition was allowed on 4.11.2008. Against that order, the second respondent filed an appeal and obtained an order of stay on 20.1.2009. 2(c). In the meantime, on 14.12.2008, the second respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters on or before 31.1.2009, by referring to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 14.10.2008, which, according to the petitioner, was not served on her. Both the orders are challenged on the basis that they are arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also on the basis that the order is based on mala fide intention. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the Director of School Education, it is stated that the impugned order dated 14.10.2008 was passed by the first respondent on the basis that no residential quarters is permitted within the school premises. Since the petitioner has been residing within the school premises in the quarters, based on the conditions of Director of School Education (Matriculation) dated 14.10.2008 while granting temporary recognition to Standards 1 to 12 in the second respondent school for the period between 1.6.2007 and 31.05.2010, viz., no residential quarters should be situated in the Matriculation School campus, the second respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters. It is also stated that the said order issued by the first respondent dated 14.10.2008 to the second respondent School was passed on the basis of the report of a Commission appointed after the tragic incident in a school at Kumbakonam which took more than 100 lives of children due to the fire that broke out from a noon meal centre situated within the school campus. It is stated that the first respondent is the competent authority to impose such conditions to the educational agencies as per the provisions of the Code of Regulations. 4. THE second respondent in the counter affidavit filed has stated that it is true that the writ petitioner filed a writ petition in respect of salary and against the order passed in that writ petition, the second respondent management filed an appeal and stay was granted by the Division Bench of this Court, based on an order granted by the Supreme Court in a similar case and there is no mala fide on the part of the second respondent in passing the impugned order. THE second respondent approached the first respondent for recognition of the school from 1.6.2007 and by proceedings dated 14.10.2008, which is also impugned in the writ petition, the first respondent granted recognition for the period from 1.6.2007 to 31.5.2010 subject to certain conditions and one of the conditions is that there should not be any residential quarters or commercial operations in the school campus. It was only due to that reason, the impugned order came to be passed directing the petitioner to vacate the quarters. 5. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, she has stated that in similar circumstances, alternative quarters in C-type and B-type were provided in respect of two teachers viz., Tmt. Chandra Kumari and Selvi Jerardin, but, that has been denied in the case of petitioner and she has not been allotted any alternative quarters available. According to the petitioner, in C-type quarters, C-6, C-11 and C-12 and in D-type quarters D-2 and D-3 are available and a direction can be given to the second respondent to allot any one of the quarters to the petitioner alternatively. 6. THE main contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. Jayaraman, is that the second respondent school is situate in a very vast area, of course, along with the factory premises and without prejudice to the condition No,6 of the impugned order of the first respondent dated 14.10.2008, the petitioner can be allotted an alternative accommodation. It is his case that out of the above five quarters, three are vacant. 7. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the first respondent is entitled to grant recognition to the school on certain conditions under the Code of Regulations and therefore, the impugned order dated 14.10.2008 issued by the first respondent is well within the powers. Learned counsel for the second respondent would also submit that there are no vacancies available in the quarters and the two quarters which were allotted to the teachers referred to by the petitioner are situated within the mill premises wherein there are no more quarters available. 8. It is not in dispute that the second respondent school is a Matriculation School, which is governed by the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu. As per the Code of Regulations, the Director of Matriculation Schools, viz., the first respondent is the authority to grant recognition to schools. Clause 10 of the Code relating to the recognition of a new matriculation school is as follows:-Code 10. Recognition of new Matriculation Schools- (i)Powers to grant permission.- THE competent authority to grant permission to open a Private Matriculation School or to upgrade an existing school will be the Director. THE application will be made in proforma prescribed in Annexure II. THE fees to be paid in respect of every application to open a new Matriculation School shall be Rs.100/-. THE fee shall be credited to Government under the Head of Account prescribed by the Department.(ii)A list of new Matriculation Schools permitted to be opened by the Director shall be placed before the Board for information.(iii)Recognition.- THE Educational Agency of a private Matriculation School shall apply in the form prescribed in Annexure III for recognition of the school to the Director through the Inspector. THE application shall be made within three months from the date of opening of the school. Where a temporary recognition is accorded, application for continuance shall be made not later than three months prior to the date of expiry of the temporary recognition.(iv)THE following conditions shall be satisfied for the purpose of recognition.(a) THE Educational Agency shall produce a licence permitting the use of the school building as public building under the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act,1965 (Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1965).(b) Where the licence has been issued for a specific period, the fresh licence shall be produced before the expiry of the period of validity of the said licence.(c) THE Educational Agency must satisfy that the school is actually needed in the locality or District and that it has sufficient buildings, class rooms, laboratories, furniture, sanitary facilities and adequate grounds for physical training activities.(d) THE Schools applying for Recognition after 1st June 1978 should create an endowment of Rs.1,00,000 out of which 50 percent will be deposited at the time of opening and remaining amount will be deposited in five equal annual instalments. In respect of minority schools, separate reference should be made for obtaining exemption from creation of endowment and orders obtained in each individual case. In the case of old schools which have already created endowment the endowment will be limited to Rs.1,00,000. In the case of schools which did not create endowment status quo will be maintained. THE schools will be allowed to create the endowment of Rs.1,00,000 from the fixed deposit they have made with the University when it matures. THE date of maturity should be intimated to the authority concerned.Note: (For amendment vide D's Procs./RC68733/E3/S1 dated 9.3.82 (in the file)(e) In addition to the creation of the endowment referred to above, in the case of new schools, the Educational Agency shall also deposit in any schedule bank in the name of the school, a sum equivalent to a minimum of one month's salary of the staff employed in the school to serve as a working capital of the school which may be drawn for the disbursement of salary to the members of the staff on the due date in the event of any delay in the disbursement of salary.(f) THE Educational Agency in the case of new schools should have fulfilled all the conditions stipulated by the competent authority at the time of according permission to open the school.(g) THE school shall be situated in a building which is accessible to all castes and communities.(h) THE management of a school shall not appoint any teacher whose certificate has been suspended or cancelled or who has been declared unfit to be a teacher in recognised schools or who has been convicted for offences involving moral turpitude.(i) It shall be open to the competent authority to reject the application of a new school for recognition if he considers that any one of the conditions has not been satisfied.(j) THE Inspector may visit a recognised school during school hours."THE said clause no doubt enables the first respondent to impose various conditions while according permission to open a school. THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Clause 10 of the Code applies only in respect of a new matriculation school and inasmuch as the second respondent school is already existing, clause 10 of the Code would not apply, is fallacious. 9. A reference to clause 11 of the Code which speaks about withdrawal of recognition viz.,"Code 11. Withdrawal of recognition.-(a) THE competent authority for withdrawing recognition of a Matriculation School will be the Director.(b) THE recognition shall be withdrawn permanently or for any specified period by the Director after a proper enquiry if the Educational Agency of its authorised representative violates any one of the conditions stipulated for recognition."makes it clear that the first respondent shall be entitled to withdraw recognition on violation of any of the conditions stipulated for recognition. In such circumstances, it is not correct to state that the first respondent would not be entitled to impose any further condition, as such a construction would make the Code impracticable. Further, when the first respondent is the authority to issue recognition for matriculation schools, the power contemplated under clause 10 of the Code certainly would enable the first respondent to impose further conditions depending upon the happening of subsequent events, etc. Such a narrow construction as suggested by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that only for a new school the Director can impose such conditions while granting recognition and for an existing school he cannot impose such conditions, would be antithesis to the Code under which power is vested with the authority to maintain matriculation schools in the light of the objects of the Code. 10. In any event, in the present case, it is seen that the second respondent school which is an existing school has applied for recognition for classes 1 to 12 and on the basis of the inspection conducted by the authority under the Code, the first respondent in his proceedings dated 14.10.2008, which is impugned in this writ petition, has granted temporary recognition for the period from 1.6.2007 to 31.5.2010, subject to 10 conditions. THE conditions as seen in the impugned order are,1. THE management shall follow the contents of G.O.No,48 (School Education X2) Department, dated 21.7.2004 relating to students safety and any further instructions that may be given specifically, and the school shall not use any building for which approval or licence has not been issued.

(2.) THE school shall not contain rolling shutters, sliding doors and if found, they shall be removed and replaced with proper doors.

(3.) NO high tension electric lines shall pass across the school campus.