Point of law : Rule 13 of the said Rules of 2002 specifies the quantum of fees to be paid for applying under Section 17 of the Act or under Section 18 thereof. In the table included as a part of sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 of the said rules, there is a clear distinction made between when the applicant is a borrower and when the applicant is some other aggrieved party. The petitioner says that the tribunal erred in holding that the petitioner should be treated as a borrower and not as some other party interested in the property

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 5th respondent to give admission to the petitioner namely Hemalathasri daughter of Sriramasundaram in Commerce group of higher secondary course (Plus 1) and also direct the 3rd respondent to list the petitioners name for enrollment of candidature for higher secondary course based on petitioners fathers representation dated 15.02.2021.)

1. This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the fifth respondent to give admission to the petitioner in Commerce Group of First Year Higher Secondary Course (Plus 1) and enroll the name of the petitioner for the Higher Secondary Course.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was studying in the fifth respondent school from 6th standard to 10th standard. While the petitioner was studying in 10th standard during the academic year 2019-20 and was preparing for the public examination, the pandemic struck and as a result of the same, the Government had issued a Government Order by declaring all the students in the 10th standard as passed. Accordingly, the petitioner was also declared as passed.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that, she wanted to continue her studies in the fifth respondent school and had applied for Commerce Group in the First Year Higher Secondary Course. According to the petitioner, she was orally informed by the fifth respondent that she has been given admission in the Commerce Group. The petitioner was not able to attend the on-line classes since she was not having proper facilities to attend the classes. Ultimately, when the physical functioning of the school was attempted to be commenced during February 2021, the petitioner went to the school and at that point of time, she was informed that she has not been enrolled in First Year Higher Secondary Course and accordingly the petitioner was not allowed to pursue the course. The representation made by the petitioner on 15.02.2021 in this regard also did not evoke any response. Left with no other alternative, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. The fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portion in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder.

“5. I further submit that there is no oral admission procedure followed in our School. Such oral admission, if any is not at all permitted by School Education Department. The list of students admitted in XI Std will be finalised when particulars for Nominal Roll were called for along with Parent’s declaration regarding name in Tamil & English, Father’s / Mother’s name in Tamil & English, Date of Birth, Caste, Community, Group, Subjects, Address and Phone Number etc., The last date for admitting student fixed by the School Education Department was on 17.08.2020. The Directorate of Government Examination sent a circular to upload the Nominal Roll of the student for XI Std., Government Exam and payment of Exam Fee was sent to all schools as early as 27.01.2021 and subsequently the time was extended by its letter dated 11.02.2021 and 23.02.2021. Even at that time, the petitioner did not approach the school for admission in XI Std., So, the petitioner’s statement that she approached the school authorities for physical permission is false, misleading and frivolous one.

6. I submit that 136 out of 160 students who were studied in our school and 43 students from other schools were admitted in XI Standard totally 179 students are studying among them more than 75 students so far have not paid any fees till today almost the academic year is going to be over. In that circumstance, the petitioner’s statement that she was not permitted to sit in the class room is a concocted story. She is liable to prove the same. Since the petitioner failed or ignored to get admission initially, the subsequent procedure for the petitioner’s name inclusion in the Nominal Roll could not be carr