Mr. B. Rajendran, J.

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to allow them to continue their studies in the 12th standard of the Higher Secondary Course in the 3rd respondent school in the Academic Year 2016-2017.

2. According to the petitioners they appeared for the 11th standard common examination in the month of March, 2016 and thereafter the petitioners' parents were called separately along with other similarly placed persons by the 3rd respondent and advised to get transfer certificate from the school of their wards and join some other school. When the parents questioned, they were told that their wards did not fare well in the 11th standard annual examination. Therefore, the parents demanded the 3rd respondent to show the answer papers, but the same was refused. The 3rd respondent further told them that even in the re-test also their wards performance was not upto the mark. But in the meanwhile, they also collected fees for the 12th standard. When the parents demanded again to show the re-test papers, the 3rd respondent refused to provide the same. But the petitioners are confident that they had written well and there was no chance for getting very poor ratings. Therefore, the petitioners' parents demanded that the 3rd respondent should take into account the entire year performance of the students which is available in the progress report.

3. According to the petitioners' they have done well and further they would also contend that as per the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules, the school should have a definite policy of principles for promotion of students and such principles ought to have been framed in consultation with the Staff Council and apply the same impartially. This has been incorporated under Section 30(a) of the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules. They would contend that the 3rd respondent did not follow the said rules.

4. According to the petitioners, detention in the 11th standard is not permitted as per the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules. According to them, it is not mandatory even to pass in the examination held in the 11th standard and the same is not taken into account for any evaluation purposes. They would contend that the examination at the end of 11th standard has been prescribed only because few schools never teach the 11th standard subjects and therefore in order to make the schools to teach the 11th standard syllabus, the 1st respondent has made it mandatory to conduct the examination at the end of 11th standard. Therefore, they would contend that the result of the 11th standard examination shall not have any effect on continuing the course or to attend the 12th standard examination and detaining the students in the 11th standard is contrary to the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules.

5. Therefore, some of the petitioners' sent a representation dated 22.06.2016, to the Hon'ble Chief Minister Special Cell seeking interference in the matter and by their letter dated 22.06.2016, they instructed the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioners and consequently the second respondent had simply forwarded their representation to the 3rd respondent, but the 3rd respondent merely stated to take the TC without assigning any reasons. Hence they have come forward with this writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on a Judgment of this Court in Gooda Srinivasalu Naidu v. The Collector of Chengleput at Kancheepuram reported in 1997 (III) CTC 106 for the proposition that when power is vested with an authority under Statue, that power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further refer to G.O.Ms. No. 77, School Education Department dated 09.06.2003 and contend that re-examination for XI standard should be conducted. Further he would also contend that as per the communication of the CEO dated 12.04.2016, the schools were instructed not to detain more than 5% of the students in XI sta