Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1998 Supreme(Mad) 1540

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.
P. Sathasivam, J.
The Coimbatore District Aided Secondary and Higher Secondary School Management Association, represented by its President, Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore – Appellants
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu and others – Respondent
W.P.No.12253 of 1989, W.P.No.91 of 1990, W.P.No.584 of 1990, W.P.No.3113 of 1990, W.P.No.17931 of 1990 and W.P.No.18841 of 1990
Decided On : 13th November, 1998.

Advocates Appeared:
V. Ayyadurai, for Petitioner in W.P.No.12253 of 1989., Joseph Jerome, for Martin, for Petitioner in W.P.No.91 of 1990., R.Muthukumaraswamy, Senior Counsel, for K. Sundareswaran, for Petitioner in W.P.No.584 of 1990., N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, for Petitioner in W.P.Nos.3113 of 1990 and 17931 of 1990., S. Sampathkumar for Petitioner in W.P.No.18841 of 1990.
T.R. Rajagopalan, Additional Advocate General for N. Subramani, Government Advocate, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.12253 of 1989., P.K. Rajagopal, for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No.12253 of 1989.

Nomination of representatives for school Management Committed in private aided schools made limited.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974—Rules 12(3) and 12(3) (a), Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1974—Sections 15, 18 and 56—Amendment in the rules restricting the limit of representatives for the school management committees in private schools—However, one member from non-teaching staff and a nominee of Parent—Teachers Association would be included—Held, section 15 of the Act not violative of the Act or constitution.

ORDER

In all these writ petitions the petitioners have sought for writ of declaration, declaring Rules 12(3) and 12(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 passed by the first respondent and the consequential proceedings made by the Educational authorities as ultra vires of Sec.15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and violative of Arts.19(i)(c) and 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India, so far as the petitioners schools are concerned. Since similar contentions have been raised in all the writ petitions, for the convenience, I shall refer the factual position in W.P.No.12253 of 1989.

2. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.12253 of 1989 is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner is the Coimbator. District Aided Secondary and Higher Secondary School Management Association. It is stated that as per Sec.17 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the school committee is invested with the power of transacting business of private schools. As such, the management have got much power to administer the institution in accordance with the rules ensuing a good education to the students. Under Sec.15 of the Act, it is a pre-condition to have a school Committee in every recognised school which shall include the headmaster of the school and the senior most teachers employed in the school. Further Sec.15 also provides to include the number of representatives of teachers and also prescribes different number of representatives from different classes of private schools. The rule prescribes that two senior most teachers in the school to be members of school committee in case where the institutional agency employees less than 20 teachers and three representatives in cases where number of teachers employed is more than 20. The Headmaster would be a member ex officio in the committee. Under the said rules no limitation is provided regarding the number of representatives of the educational agency. Thus, the educational agency is given power to manage and administer the institution in consonance with their object of imparting education to suit the social needs.

3. It is further stated that the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.1502, Education, dated 23.9.1988 seeking to amend the various rules of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Rule 12 of the Private School Rules has been amended by the impugned Government order introducing different classes of persons to the members of school committee and also restricts the total number of members of the school committee by taking away right of the educational agency to nominate any number of persons as their representatives of the committee. The impugned G.O., seeks to prescribe the total number of members of the school committee as 12 which shall include the representatives of foreign class of persons, namely,

(a) Parent Teacher association nominee - 1

(b) non-teaching staff representative - 1

(d) representatives of educational agency - 6

(e) Headmaster as ex officio member.

It is stated that the amended Government Order infringes the right of management to administer the institution apart from interfering with internal management of the private school. The impugned Government Order is illegal and ultra vires the Act. In such circumstance, having no other remedy, they approached this Court by way of the above writ petitions. As stated earlier, I am not referring similar contentions raised in the other writ petitions.

4. The Government have filed counter affidavit only in W.P.No.91 of 1990. The defence taken by the Government is briefly stated hereunder: It is stated that the Act was enacted to regulate the functions of recognised private schools in the State of Tamil Nadu. To carry out various purposes of the Act, the Government have been empowered to make rules generally under Sec.56 and se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document