The legal principle established is that the competent authority for upgradation of school recognition lies with the Director of Matriculation Schools.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records and quash the impugned notice issued by the 6th respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.387/A1/2021 dated 14.10.2021 and consequently directing the 4th respondent to pass an order upgrading the recognition to the petitioner from Primary (LKG to V Std.) to Elementary (up to VIII std.) within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.)

1. This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2021 returning the petitioner's application seeking for upgradation of their school from Primary to Elementary on the ground that the 6th respondent is not the competent authority.

2. Heard Mr.D. Baskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 6th respondent and in paragraph No.6, therein, it has been stated that the proposal for the upgradation submitted by the petitioner was returned by the 6th respondent only due to the fact that the petitioner has applied for upgradation of the School as Middle School with English Medium which come under the Code of Matriculation Schools and the powers are vested only with the Director of Matriculation Schools. The Director of Matriculation Schools is the second respondent in this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would now submit that the petitioner is prepared to re-present the returned application seeking for upgradation with the second respondent and request this Court for a direction to the second respondent once such a representation is done to pass orders within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has also not raised any serious objection, if such a direction is issued by this Court.

6. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if a direction is issued to the second respondent to pass final orders, once the application is re-presented by the petitioner with the second respondent within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the petitioner to represent the application, which was returned by the 6th respondent under the impugned order dated 14.10.2021 with the second respondent, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said application, the second respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner including granting them the right of personal hearing, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

8. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.