B. Tharunan vs The Secretary to Government Education Department and Others

V. Dhanapalan, J.—By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal. Heard Mr. N. Sundaresan for M/s. Sun Associates, counsel for

the Petitioner and Mr. R. Manoharan, Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondents 1 to 5 and Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, counsel for the

sixth Respondent.

The Petitioner, who is the father of the student affected with dyslexia, approached this Court with a prayer to direct the fourth Respondent to

provide concessions eligible to his son, namely, B. Tharunan as per the Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 110 Department of School Education,

dated 17.07.2003.

According to the Petitioner, his son B. Tharunan was born on 29.10.1995 and admitted at the age of four in a Primary School at Sivagangai and

thereafter, at Ramakrishna Mission Higher Secondary School (South), Chennai. Normally, his activities are like that of other children, but while

writing the subjects, he used to mix up the language of his mother tongue, viz., in Tamil with English. Initially, it was under the impression that this is

due to careless and even the teachers of the school were also opined that his concentration gets diverted and so, the mistakes had crept in. In the

same manner, when a question pose to him, he answers correctly, but when he is asked to write, he commits mistakes. It was noticed repeatedly

that there were complaints from the School teachers also. Later on, his son was put under serious medical tests and they came to know that he

was suffering from a disease known as ''Dyslexia''. Immediately, the Petitioner took his son to a Non-Governmental Organisation, by name, ''the

Madras Dyslexia Association'', who conducts a school especially for dyslexic students at T. Nagar Chennai. Subsequently, the said Association

conducted various tests to his son both oral and written and found that the Petitioner''s son is able to answer correctly for the questions put to him,

but while writing, he is committing mistakes. Finally, they concluded that his son was suffering from ''Dyslexia'' and accordingly, they gave a report.

It is the further case of the Petitioner that till 9th standard his son studied at Ramakrishna Mission Higher Secondary School (south) Chennai and

in 2010 due to his shifting from Chennai to Madurai, he put his son with the 6th Respondent''s school. In the said school, he explained about his

son''s disorder and produced all the medical reports related to his disorder. Since his son is studying 10th standard, he applied to the sixth

Respondent for providing a scribe to read the questions and write the answers as answered by his son. Apart from that he also sought for extra

time to answer examination paper, as he is eligible as per G.O. No. 110 dated 17.07.2003. In this context, he made an application to the sixth

Respondent to refer his son to the medical board, namely, to the Madurai Rajaji Hospital, so as to assess his present status and get the benefit

provided for dyslexia student. Accordingly, the sixth Respondent referred his son to the Medical board at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai

and on verification, the Medical Board issued a Certificate confirming his son is suffering from Dyslexia. The medical board also certified that his

son is eligible for the following concessions:

i) appointment of a scribe to read the question and write the answers.

ii) extra time to answer examination paper.

iii)use of calculator

iv)use of a clark''s table

v)exemption for any one language.

Based on the above Certificate issued by the Medical Board, the sixth Respondent addressed in its letter, dated 30.11.2010, to the fifth

Respondent/District Educational Officer to provide concessions for the Petitioner''s son as per the above said Government order for the ensuing

public examinations. The District Educational Officer consequent to such letter of the sixth Respondent had written a letter dated 04.01.2011 to

the Regional Regional Deputy Director of Examinations, Madurai, asking permission and recommendation for providing scribe for the Petitioner''s

son to write the examinations scheduled to be held in March 2011. The Regional Regional Deputy Director of Examinations on receipt of the letter

from the District Educational Officer, instead of taking any action on such request had simply returned the same to the sixth Respondent school,

who in turn, handed over the said letter to the Petitioner''s son, stating that his son has to get identity card from the Social Welfare Department and

produce to them. When he approached the social welfare department, he came to know that the identity card is only meant for physically disabled

person and not to the persons, who are affected with dyslexia, which is mind related.

According to the Petitioner, as per the Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 110, School Education Department, dated 17.07.2003 when a child

is suffering from dyslexia and on recommendation from a medical practitioner, the Regional Deputy Director of the Government Examinations shall

examine the said application and can accord the concessions eligible for ''dyslexia'' student. While so, the action of the fourth Respondent in

denying the legitimate concession to the Petitioner''s son is contrary to the Government order, arbitrary and discouraging the ''dyslexic'' student to

pursue his education. Having no other alternate remedy, the Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition for the relief stated earlier.

The fifth Respondent namely, the District Educational Officer, Melur, has sworn an affidavit, in which, it is stated that the Petitioner made an

application through the sixth Respondent School to provide concession to the Petitioner''s son for the upcoming public examination, which is to be

commenced in the month of March 2011 and the same was forwarded to the fifth Respondent along with the recommendation to permit the

Petitioner''s son to write the examination as dyslexia student on the basis of the Certificate of the Medical Board. On receipt of the application

along with the Medical Board Certificate, the fifth Respondent/District Educational Officer forwarded the same to the fourth Respondent, namely,

the Regional Deputy Director of Examinations, Madurai, on 06.01.2011, along with recommendations to consider the Petitioner''s request to

permit his son along with concession.

It is the stand of the fifth Respondent that the above said communication addressed to the Regional Deputy Director of examinations, Madurai,

was despatched due to emergency and for the benefit of the student through one Ravichandran, who is the staff of the sixth Respondent School

and the fifth Respondent came to know that the above said school staff delivered the said cover to the Regional Deputy Director of examinations

office. Finding some error and for rectification of the same, the office of the fourth Respondent have returned the said cover. Instead of returning

the same to the fifth Respondent, the staff of the school has handed over the cover to the class teacher of the Petitioner''s son and subsequently, it

was handed over to his son. The fifth Respondent sent a communication to the sixth Respondent to take disciplinary proceedings against the said

Ravichandran by way of proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 9502/B1/2010 dated 01.02.2011.

The sixth Respondent has filed a counter and explained the position of the case by narrating the happenings and it is admitted by them that B.

Tharunan is a student of their school, who is studying in 10th standard. They received an oral request from the father of the student in November

2010 praying for permitting a scribe for him to write the examinations. Unfortunately, the father of the student had failed to inform the school

management about the condition of his son at the time of admission. The Certificate dated 29.04.2010 said to have been issued by the Child

Guidance Clinic, Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children, Chennai, was not furnished to the school authority, namely, the sixth

Respondent herein. When the father of the student requested to refer his son to the Regional Medical Board for medical examination, the school

authorities acted promptly and the Medical Board after examining the boy on 23.11.2010 had issued a Certificate stating that he is suffering from

dyslexia. It is further stated by the sixth respondnet that a scribe can be assigned for a student only if the competent authority grants permission and

therefore, they sent a letter dated 30.11.2010 to the District Educational Officer, Melur. However, till date they have not received any permission

and the relief sought for and this writ petition is only against the fourth Respondent and as such, they have no role in the matter.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner after narrating pitiable and pathetic condition of the Petitioner''s son, who is affected with dyslexia and

after taking this Court to various documents and the opinion of the Medical Board of the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai submits that as per

the Government order in G.o. Ms. No. 110 dated 17.07.2003, the application of the Petitioner has to be considered by the Regional Deputy

Director of examination. However, he has not acted in the manner known to law and never takes a decision to consider the case of the Petitioner

and he simply returned the papers to the student through a staff of the school concerned. He further submits that this is the consistent practise of the

Education Department, whenever a student is affected with ''dyslexia'', invariably he has to be provided with a scribe for writing the examination

along with other concessions as per the Government order from time to time.

On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that it is true that as per the Government order, when a student affected with

dyslexia, he should be provided with a scribe, if there is an application by the student, the same to be processed and a recommendation is to be

made by the competent authority and it is for the authority to consider the same and provide necessary arrangements for writing the examination. It

is fairly submitted by the learned Government Advocate that in the case on hand, the authority concerned, namely, the Regional Deputy Director of

examinations neither taken a decision nor passed any orders in this regard.

12.The learned Counsel for the sixth Respondent would contend that though they had no prior intimation at the time of admission, later, a

Certificate of the Child Guidance Clinic, Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children was placed before them. Subsequently as per the

request of the Petitioner herein, the sixth Respondent referred the Petitioner''s son to a Medical Board and the Medical Board opined that the boy

is affected with dyslexia. Therefore, they recommended to the fifth Respondent for necessary orders and it is for the authority concerned to pass

necessary orders and grant permission to write the examination with a scribe and on such permission, the Petitioner''s son is permitted to write the

examination in their school.

13.I have heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials annexed in the typed set of papers.

mittedly, the Petitioner''s son was earlier in the school of Sri Ramakrishna Mission Higher Secondary School, South Chennai till 9th standard.

Thereafter, he moved to Madurai and his son was admitted in 10th standard in the sixth Respondent school. It is evident from the materials placed

before this Court that the Petitioner''s son was affected with dyslexia. Therefore, the father of the student, namely, the Petitioner herein has made

an application to the sixth Respondent school and the school authorities recommended the case of the Petitioner''s son to the fourth Respondent in

its letter dated 30.11.2010 and the concerned District Educational Officer has also taken note of all the relevant documents and recommended the

case of the student to the fourth Respondent, namely, the Regional Regional Deputy Director of the Government examination. However, neither he

has acted on the recommendation of the sixth Respondent nor passed any orders.

As per the Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 110 Department of School Education dated 17.07.2003, which has been passed with an

object of providing education to the students, who are affected with dyslexia, wherein, the Director of School Examinations is the competent

authority to give the following concessions to the children affected with dyslexia and other disabilities, on the basis of the medical/psychiatrist''s

Certificate.

i) appointment of a scribe to read the question and write the answers.

ii) extra time to answer examination paper.

iii)use of calculator

iv)use of a clark''s tablev)exemption for any one language.

It is further stated in the said Government order that in respect of giving concession to the children suffering from Dyslexia, the concerned

children should apply for concessions to the Director of Government Examinations with recommendation from medical practitioners/psychiatrists,

School teachers and special educators and the Director of Government Examinations will examine these applications and can accord concessions

on the ground that (i) he/she can be a regular student in a school or directly appear for examinations after getting trained from special educators, (ii)

for every examination one hour extra time can be given, (iii) he/she can be exempted from any one language and if anyone wants to appear for both

languages, they can be permitted, (iv) while valuing the answer papers of other subjects, marks need not be deducted for spelling mistakes and the

gist of the answer can be taken into consideration and marks may be awarded and it is for the Director of Government Examinations to advice the

valuers in respect of the concessions.

In the instant case on hand, the fourth Respondent, who is the competent authority for giving such concession to the students, who are affected

with dyslexia, has not considered the recommendation of the sixth Respondent. However, the recommendation letter was returned by the

competent authority to the Petitioner''s son, who is the student of the school, through a staff of the sixth Respondent school and therefore, this act

of the fourth Respondent is highly deprecated. Being a public authority and having a legal obligation to act as per the Government orders, taking

into account the welfare of the students and when a concession is granted by the Government to the students of this nature, it is improper on the

part of the fourth Respondent to act contrary to the Government orders and the policy of the Government in not taking the decision. If anything is

found defective, it is for him to apply his mind and to take a decision at the earliest in either way. On the contrary, he has not only acted in an

arbitrary manner but with an inhuman way of returning the papers to the sixth Respondent school through some person, which, in the opinion of this

Court, cannot be appreciated in any manner. It is expected that the authority like the fourth Respondent at least in future will act as a public servant

in a matter of this nature with a human consideration while dealing with a case of a student, who is languishing for his studies to go further.

Moulding the children is amount to moulding a Nation which is a mission and vision of the educational policy of the State and Central

Governments, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. As such, it is the obligation on the part of the

4th Respondent to act diligently and give his due consideration and grant the concession to ''Dyslexia'' students. The fourth Respondent has not

taken any decision by pointing out any defect and simply returned the papers. Looking at any angle the act of the fourth Respondent cannot be

condoned and this Court strongly expresses its displeasure over the act of the Regional Regional Deputy Director of Examination/the fourth

Respondent herein for his inaction and apathy.

In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the fourth Respondent to pass appropriate

orders on the application made by the father of the student, viz, the Petitioner herein, taking into account the recommendation of the fifth and sixth

Respondents and provide a scribe to the Petitioner''s son, who is affected with dyslexia, to write the ensuing examination to be commenced from

March, 2011. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. This petition is allowed

with costs of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only).