The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Director of Matriculation Schools to impose conditions for recognition of matriculation schools, including the prohibition of residential quarters within school premises, in the interest of safety measures for children.

The writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent dated 110. 2008 and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 112. 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 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 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 19. 1995 on the rent of Rs.20/- per month apart from electricity charges and on 17. 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 112. 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 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 112. 2008, the second respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters on or before 31. 2009, by referring to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 110. 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 110. 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 110. 2008 while granting temporary recognition to Standards 1 to 12 in the second respondent school for the period between 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 110. 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