C. Gururaman rep. by his father and natural guardian, Mr. S.K. Chandrasekaran vs The Chief Education Officer, Sri Ganesar Higher Secondary School and Government Girls Higher Secondary School

S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner is a minor, and this writ petition has been filed by his father and natural guardian. Petitioner is a student of 2nd Respondent-School for the Academic year 1997-98 and appeared for the Final Examination for the XI Std. (Plus 1). Petitioner was not promoted. It is said that the second Respondent is a recognised and aided school. According to the affidavit, as per the pattern and policy of Education for XI Std., the 1st Respondent has to frame common question papers for all schools in Tuticorin District and conduct the final examinations. 1st Respondent has to conduct a Government Examination for all XI Std. students in the Tuticorin District, and valuation of the answer sheet will be done only at a particular centre for the entire District under the direct control and supervision of 1st Respondent. Thereafter, the first Respondent will publish the results also. According to the Petitioner, fourth Respondent has exhibited two Rules regarding promotion. They read thus:

On the basis of the Rules, Petitioner claims that he is entitled to be promoted to the XII Std., even though he has failed or obtained marks in Economics and Accountancy at 35%. It is his further case that various students who have obtained even lesser marks or even obtained nine marks, have been promoted, and a discrimination has been shown so far as Petitioner is concerned, and it has deprived the Petitioner is concerned, and it has deprived the Petitioner promotion to XII Std. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of first Respondent in Na. Ka. No. 1164/A4/98 dated 17.6.1998 and quash the same, and further direct Respondents 1 and 2 to promote the Petitioner from XI Std. to XII Std., and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

In the impugned Order, Petitioner is informed that he is not eligible for promotion. The marks obtained by him have also been intimated.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by 1st Respondent disputing the claim of the Petitioner. It is stated therein that the Petitioner has no legal right to get promotion and the eligibility for promotion is decided by the Staff Council of every school and the Headmaster has only to abide by the recommendation of the Staff Council. The Staff Council maintains standard for each school even though the Examination is conducted on the basis of common question paper. Each school has got a separate standard and the Headmaster has to hear the views of the Staff Council in taking decision. It is further said that there is no Public Examination at Plus 1 level (XI Std.) but in order to streamline the standards of education, maintain discipline, regular attendance, promotion, etc. of the school, the Staff Council of every school is empowered to advise the Headmaster on matters of discipline, promotion, selection and any other matter that may be placed before it by the Headmaster. It is said that as per Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules, the Headmaster, for the purpose of promotion shall frame definite principles for each class in consultation with the Staff Council and apply them strictly and impartially in all cases. If the Headmaster makes any promotion in contravention of the provision of the Rule itself is deemed to have committed an irregularity. The list of students who are promoted to next standard shall be considered final and no alterations shall be allowed in it except for the purpose of correcting mistakes. Reading of Rules 12 and 30 of the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules would amply prove that the standards of education, promotion and selection are determined by the Staff Council of every school and that the Headmaster has no authority to act on his own to alter any promotion list except for the purpose of correcting mistakes. So far as the Government Order is concerned, the following principles are adopted for promotions: (1) 35% of marks in the Language 1- Part I, (2) 35% of marks in the Language English - Part II, (3) Other than Practical Examination subjects and including Practical Examination subjects other optional subjects 35%. As regards the 2nd Respondent School, the principles of promotion adopted are: (1) Must score 35% marks in Tamil and English, (2) Must score 35% marks in any three (Part III) subjects, and (3) Must score 500 marks out of 1200 in total. It is further denied by first Respondent that it has published the results of all the students of the district based on the principles of promotion fixed by the 4th Respondent-School. First Respondent has every right to decide the mode of conducting the examination, valuation and publication of results. The Chief Educational Officer is the competent authority to conduct the examination, but promotion lists are being drawn by the schools based on their principles of promotion. It is further said that the principles of promotion vary from school to school depending upon the decision of the Staff Council which considers various factors stated above. Respondents have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

After hearing learned Counsel on both sides, I feel that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Various instances have been shown in para 6 of the writ petition that students who have obtained even lesser marks have been promoted. But, in the counter affidavit filed by 1st Respondent, he has specifically stated that so far as the school in which the Petitioner is studying, they have not given any allowance for the standard prescribed by it and no student who has obtained lesser marks than prescribed by it, was promoted. The instances given relate only to third Respondent-school. Merely because in another school, a lesser standard is maintained, and a student who had scored lesser marks had been promoted, that will not be a ground for Petitioner claiming a legal right. On that basis, Petitioner cannot claim that the same standard should be maintained in another school. It is for the Authorities of the school to decide regarding the maintenance of standard and policy of promotion.

Learned Counsel also brought to my notice the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules, with particular reference to Rules 12 and 30. In the Sub-rule (4) to Rule 12, it is said thus:

Each school shall have a Staff Council consisting of the Headmaster as President and from 5 to 11 members of the teaching staff according to the size of the institution. Each school shall frame its own rules in respect of the actual constitution of the Staff Council and the conduct of its business subject to the approval of the District Educational Officer. The Staff Council shall have powers to advise the Headmaster on matters of discipline, promotion, selection and any other matter that may be placed before it by the Headmaster. Members of the Council may also submit to the Council subjects increase which will in cease their own professional efficiency and such other subjects as may be approved by the Headmaster. The Council will also offer advice to the Managing Body or the Advisory Committee of the school on such matters as may be referred to it by that Committee....

Rule 30 also provides that it is the Staff Council that has to advise the Headmaster, and if he acts against the advice, the Headmaster must be deemed to have committed an irregularity. The relevant portion of Rule 30 reads thus:

For purposes of promotions, the Headmaster shall frame definite principles for each class in consultation with the staff council and apply them strictly and impartially to all cases. If the Headmaster makes any promotion in contravention of any of the foregoing provisions of this rule, he shall be deemed to have committed an irregularity within the meaning of Rule 98(1)(b).

Petitioner has further alleged that even students who have obtained nine marks have been promoted and, therefore, Petitioner''s case must also be considered in that line. If that argument is accepted, it will only mean that what the Petitioner wants is that the standard of the school must be reduced and students who have not obtained even ten marks must be made eligible for promotion. A court of law cannot recognise such a request. In educational matters, Courts must be slow in interference, since it is for the School to take its own decisions in regard to discipline and promotion.

Relief sought in this writ petition is one for certiorarified mandamus. By intimating the marks and informing the Petitioner that he is not eligible for promotion, Respondent-School has not done any illegal act, nor has it committed any act without jurisdiction. It has only intimated the Petitioner that he is not entitled for promotion. An educational authority (i.e., school) is bound to inform the same under law, and that alone has been done in this case. Therefore, there is no question of issuing any writ of certiorari. There cannot be any question of issuing a writ of mandamus also, so long as Petitioner has no legal right or there is any corresponding duty on the part of the Respondents to promote him to the next standard when he has not obtained the eligible marks for promotion. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with costs which I quantify at Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only). WMP No. 14761 of 1998 for interim direction is also dismissed.