S. Manikumar, J.

In W.P.(MD).No.9433 of 2015, the petitioner, Mr. A. Kathiresan, has contended that his three daughters, were studying in E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, K. Pudur, Madurai, right from L.K.G. First daughter has passed out +2 in the year 2014. Second daughter, K. Subashini, student of standard X, has secured 489 marks out of 500, in the Public Examination conducted in the year 2014-15. The details are, 94 marks in Tamil, 98 marks in English, 98 marks in Mathematics, 99 marks in Science and 100 marks out of 100 marks in Social Science. Third daughter is studying in standard VIII. After Xth results were published, he submitted an application of K. Subashini for admission to XI standard, Bio-Maths group. Though G.O.Ms.No.126, School Education (V) Department, dated 11.06.2007, stipulates that admission of a student from X to XI standard, within the same school, should not be treated as fresh admission, but only as a continuation of the original admission done at the school and further stipulates that no admission should be conducted by the schools for their own students, petitioner's daughter was denied admission in standard XI. Though several requests were made by the petitioner, as well as his daughter, admission to standard XI was not given. Petitioner has further submitted that one more student, by name K. Keerthana, daughter of S. Kumarasamy, who has also secured high marks in SSLC Public Examination, was denied admission. In W.P.No.10434 of 2015, minor K. Keerthana, is represented by her mother, Premalatha.

2. In W.P.(MD).No.9433 of 2015, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the Principal, E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, K. Pudur, Madurai, dated 04.06.2015, communicated to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Tallakulam, Madurai. Reasons assigned by the E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School are that there is no sufficient infrastructure, and that the above said students are not selected, by the Selection Committee. In the supporting affidavit to abovesaid writ petition, he has further contended that the real reason for denying admission to his daughter, K. Subashini, is that, he and the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.10434 of 2015, S. Murugesan, uncle of K. Keerthana, are the Joint Secretary and Secretary respectively, of E.B.G. Matric Palli Manavala Petror Sangam and that they made complaints to the educational authorities against the demand and collection of excess fees, by the School, than the fee determined by the Private Schools Fees Determination Committee. They also pointed out to the educational authorities that teachers and management have harassed the students and on many occasions, there was quarrel between the parents and teachers. Before the Writ Court, averments have also been made that the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, has sent a letter in Na.Ka.No.13789/A4/2014, dated 10.12.2014, to the Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai, stating that the School has refunded the excess fee collected from the students and accordingly, a huge sum of Rs. 30,32,000/- collected from the students, studying in L.K.G. to XII standard, was repaid by E.B.G. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, K.Pudur, Madurai. Because of the action of the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Sangam, the school was aggrieved. The petitioner has further submitted that the reasons assigned in the communication dated 04.06.2015, addressed to the Inspector of Matriculation of Schools, Madurai, that there is no infrastructure and that the names of the students did not find place in the selection list, are made only for the purpose of denying admission; they are not the real, and bonafide, but the Management has victimised the students, for the act of the Office Bearers of the E.B.G. Matric Palli Manavala Petror Sangam.

3. Before the Writ Court, the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Madurai, in his counter affidavit, h