SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1660

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Rukmuni Matriculation School, Rep. by its Correspondent, N. Syamala Devi – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Additional Secretary, Education Department – Respondent
W.P.No.44358 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.49488 of 2025
Decided On : 26-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Prakash, Senior Counsel, for Mr. S.N. Ravichandran
For the Respondents: Mrs. S. Mythreye Chandru, Special Government Pleader (Education), Mr. K.V. Sajeevkumar.

The court held that infrastructure compliance is essential for school establishment recognition, but existing conditions must be reassessed in light of ongoing civil litigation.

Headnote:The judgment analyzes the challenge against G.O.(1D) No. 84 under Article 226, permitting the establishment of Rukmuni Matriculation School by addressing issues related to infrastructure standards and compliance with Tamil Nadu Private School Regulations. The court finds that while deficiencies were noted regarding infrastructure, the petitioner's claims for recognition were to be reconsidered after inspection, remanding the application to the fourth respondent with clear directives for compliance and prompt resolution. Ultimately, the impugned government order was set aside and the application was ordered to be remanded for fresh consideration.

ORDER :

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned Government Order passed by the second respondent in G.O. (1D) No. 84, School Education (MS) Department dated 16.07.2025, and to accordingly direct the respondents to grant permission and recognition to open Rukmuni Matriculation School from LKG to 10th Standard and pass such further or other orders.

2. The petitioner's case is that the land and the school building at Q-100-A, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai 600106, measuring 7 grounds and 800 sq.ft., were allotted to the petitioner by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in 1984 for establishing a school. The petitioner started a school called ‘Maruti Vidyalaya’ on the said site, which was operational. The educational agency managing the school was named Maruti Educational Trust. Meanwhile, third parties, including G. Kamala, claimed rights to the school under a partnership deed. Disputes arose between the parties regarding this partnership, leading to civil suits filed in this Court and the City Civil Court, Chennai. Ultimately, the partnership disputes were referred to arbitration, and the Learned Arbitrator passed an award on 18.03.2019, stating that the school was also part of the partnership business. Challenging this, the petitioner filed O.P.No.1068 of 2019. The original petition, filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, was decided in favour of the petitioner, explicitly ruling that the school was not part of the partnership's business or property. The fifth respondent, aggrieved by this, has filed an original side appeal in OSA (CAD).No.78 of 2024, which remains pending. No interim order has been granted in those proceedings.

3. Thus, due to ongoing inter-se disputes, when the recognition of the said Maruti Vidyalaya expired in 2010, the school was not being run, despite the property being specifically allotted to the petitioner for establishing and running a school and despite the existence of a proper building for it. The petitioner therefore established a new trust under another registered trust deed dated 11.03.2010, naming herself, her mother-in-law, and others as trustees. Since 2010, the petitioner has been working to open a new school. The new school, now called ‘Rukmuni Matriculation School,’ plans to conduct classes from LKG to 10th standard, and has submitted an application for recognition under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulation) Rules, 2023.

4. By an order dated 25.03.2025, the District Educational Officer, the fourth respondent herein, refused recognition, citing certain infrastructural deficiencies such as:

- Not all the classrooms are 400 sq ft.

- There must be two staircases of 1.6 m width.

- There must be two entrances for each of the classrooms.

- The corridor in front of the classroom should be 1.8 m wide.

- Lightning protection system is not installed.

-Certificate of ownership of the land issued by the Tahsildar is not annexed.

5. The petitioner submitted her explanation addressing each of the deficiencies pointed out, but it was not accepted. The impugned order stated that unless the petitioner fulfils the requirements and provides proof thereof, recognition cannot be granted. The petitioner filed an appeal to the second respondent under Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulation) Rules, 2023. After considering the grounds raised in the appeal, the second respondent rejected the petitioner's argument that, because a school named ‘Maruti Educational School’ was originally operating in the same premises, Rule 8(8) of the Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulation) Rules, 2023, cannot be applied, as the present application is a new one for starting a different school, and the current rules must be followed by the petitioner.

6. The deficiencies are, namely:

- The minimum area of the classroom should be 400 square feet

- There shall be one room for each class

- The minimum floor space should be at least 10 square feet per pupil and 40

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top