M/s. Baratha Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Aranilayam vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner is the Educational Agency of M.K.R. Ayya Nadar Jeyalakshmi Ammal Higher Secondary School. The

School is at Kamarajar Salai, Madurai. The said school was established in the year 1999 with standards from LKG to 1st standard. Presently, the

school is offering education from LKG to 10th standard. It is affiliated to Indian Certificate Secondary Education (ICSE) Stream, New Delhi. The

medium of instruction is English. The teachers are appointed in accordance with the qualifications prescribed by ICSE. The petitioner made an

application to the 3rd respondent herein, through the 5th respondent, seeking permission to start XI and XII standards in their school under Tamil

Nadu State Board Syllabus. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the 3rd respondent by his proceedings in Na. Ka. No.

47261/W4/E2/2010, dated 03.06.2010. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

In this writ petition, it is contended that though the petitioner school is offering education upto 10th standard under ICSE stream, still the school

is entitled to start +1 and +2 classes in the school under Tamil Nadu State Board Syllabus. In support of the said contention, the petitioner relies

on G.O.Ms. No. 102, School Education-U2 Department, dated 26.07.2001. In the said G.O., the Government has directed that the Directorate

of School Education shall not permit starting of schools with only +1 and +2 classes, without having classes from 6th standard to 10th standard.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the aim of the said G.O. is to discourage truncated schools which are offering only +1 and

+2 course alone, like tutorial institutions. In the case of the petitioner, the petitioner school has got already classes upto 10th standard and

therefore, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner school is entitled for starting classes +1 and +2 under the Tamil Nadu State Syllabus.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further bring to my notice that a similar question arose before a learned Single Judge of this

Court in W.P.(MD) No. 2473 of 2011 (The Correspondent, The Little Kingdom Senior School, Vedapurai vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and

others). By order dated 13.12.2011, the writ court directed the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), Chennai, to grant

permission to the petitioner therein to start +1 and +2 classes, though the said school was offering education upto 10th standard under a different

stream. When the same was challenged by the Government in an appeal in W.A.(MD) No. 118 of 2011, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed

the said appeal, thereby confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. As against the same, the Government filed SLP before the Hon''ble

Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 23223 of 2012. By order dated 22.02.2013, the Hon''ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave

Petition. However, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has left the question of law open.

Relying on the above judgment, since the petitioner school also stands in the same footing, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner

school is also entitled to start +1 and +2 classes under the Tamil Nadu State Board Syllabus.

The learned Additional Advocate General would, however, vehemently oppose this Writ Petition. The learned Additional Advocate General

would submit that the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 102, School Education-U2 Department, dated 26.07.2001, cannot be gone into in this writ petition,

because there is no challenge to the said Government Order. Further, he would submit that G.O.Ms. No. 102, School Education-U2)

Department, dated 26.07.2001, upon which much reliance has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no application to the

petitioner school at all. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that G.O.Ms. No. 102, School Education-U2 Department,

dated 26.07.2001, is applicable only in respect of the schools which are imparting education upto 10th standard under the Tamil Nadu State

Board Syllabus and if schools are imparting education upto 10th standard under different streams, like ICSE, CBSE, etc., then, those schools are

not entitled for starting +1 and +2 Classes under the Tamil Nadu State Board Syllabus. The learned Additional Advocate General would further

submit that this issue was not considered by the Division Bench in the judgment in W.A.(MD) No. 118 of 2012 and therefore the judgment of the

Division Bench in the said appeal cannot be taken as a precedent. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that as against

the order of the Division Bench, already a review has been filed, in which, in the delay condonation petition, notice has been ordered to the school

therein. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the petitioner school is not entitled for starting +1 and +2 classes under

the Tamil Nadu State Board syllabus. In such view of the matter, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the impugned order does

not require any interference at the hands of this Court.

I have considered the above submissions.

G.O.Ms. No. 102, School Education-U2 Department, dated 26.07.2001, upon which much reliance has been made on either side, reads as

follows:

A perusal of the above Government Order would make it very clear that the Government was conscious of the fact that there were mushroom

growth of schools in the State of Tamil Nadu offering +1 and +2 Courses alone. Since these schools were showing mushroom growth, like private

tutorial institutions, the Government thought it fit to curb the said practice of schools having only +1 and +2 courses alone. With that good intention,

the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 102, School Education-U2 Department, dated 26.07.2001, directing that there shall be no schools having

truncated courses like +1 and +2 alone. The said G.O. further directs that in the event, if any school wants to start +1 and +2 courses, the school

should simultaneously have classes from 6th standard to 10th standard. In respect of the schools which are already running truncated courses like

+1 and +2 alone, the G.O. directs them to start classes from 6th standard to 10th standard also within the prescribed time. Thus, the intention of

the Government Order is inferrable and it is of course a good intention.

Now coming to the petitioner''s school, already the school is imparting education upto 10th standard, of course it is under a different stream,

namely ICSE stream. Now, the question is whether the petitioner''s school is entitled for starting +1 and +2 courses in the very same school under

Tamil Nadu State Board Syllabus.

The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General is that if the school is allowed to start +1 and +2 courses, these two classes will be

like truncated course from the courses offered upto 10th standard, because both the streams are different. In my considered opinion, the said

argument of the learned Additional Advocate General may not be accepted for more than one reason. First of all, going by the intention of the

Government, it should be ensured that there is no truncated course of +1 and +2 alone in any school. One can see that the petitioner''s school

satisfies the requirement of G.O.Ms. No. 102, School Education-U2 Department, dated 26.07.2001, because the school has already got

standards 6th to 10th standards. Thus, there is no truncation. The students who are in the petitioner''s school upto 10th standard will quite naturally

join +1 and +2 courses in the same school. Thus, there is continuous education in the very same school upto 12th standard, though the students

study upto 10th standard under one stream and +1 and +2 under a different stream. Since there is continuation in imparting education from 6th

standard to 10th standards under the very same school, it cannot be stated that because upto 12th standard the education is imparted under a

different stream, the classes of +1 and +2 are truncated. I hold that it is a continuing education, commencing from 6th standard to 12th standard.

Thus, the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that allowing the petitioner''s school to start +1 and +2 course alone under the

Tamil Nadu State Board Syllabus will amount to allowing truncated courses does not persuade me.

As could be seen from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, referred to above, the school therein is also offering classes upto 10th

standard under a different stream. It is not as though the learned Single Judge, who issued the direction therein to the Joint Director of School

Education (Higher Secondary) to grant permission to start +1 and +2 courses, was not aware of that fact. The learned Single Judge allowed the

writ petition directing the Joint Director to grant permission to the school to start +1 and +2 course under the Tamil Nadu State Board Syllabus,

whereas upto 10th standard the school was offering education under a different stream. This order came to be confirmed by the Division Bench.

On further appeal, the Hon''ble Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Division Bench. Therefore, the Hon''ble

Supreme Court dismissed the SLP itself. Thus, the order of the Division has become final, wherein the Division Bench has directed the authorities

concerned to grant permission to start +1 and +2 course in the school which is offering education upto 10th standard in a different stream.

The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has left open the question of law and therefore still it

is available for the respondents to raise the question of law. When the learned Additional Advocate General was requested to formulate the

question of law, if any available for the respondents and place before the this court for consideration, the learned Additional Advocate General

initially submitted that the question of law is regarding the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 102, School Education-U2 Department, dated 26.07.2001. In

my considered opinion, that question is not at all before this Court, because the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said G.O. Nextly,

the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the question of law is whether G.O.Ms. No. 102, School Education-U2 Department,

dated 26.07.2001, is applicable to the petitioner''s school. This question, I have already discussed and answered relying on the judgment of the

Division Bench.

Further, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the Division Bench had no occasion to answer this question and therefore

the said question is available to the respondents to contend before this Court. Assuming for a moment that the said question can be examined by

this Court, after considering the rival submissions in the earlier paragraphs, I have considered this question precisely and I have come to the

conclusion that G.O.Ms. No. 102, School Education-U2 Department, dated 26.07.2001, is applicable to the petitioner''s school and the petitioner

is entitled for starting the classes +1 and +2, though the school is offering classes upto 10th standard under a different stream.

The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that continuing education means continuation of education under the same

stream/syllabus. According to him, insofar as the petitioner''s school is concerned, upto 10th standard, the syllabus prescribed by ICSE is

followed; whereas for +1 and +2 classes, the students will have to study under the State Board Syllabus. Referring to the position, the learned

Additional Advocate General would submit that there is no continuation and that is why it should be held as a truncated course. This argument also

does not persuade me for the simple reason that it is continuation in the angle of the students. A student who joins 6th standard is to study

continuously in the same school upto 12th standard. Whether it is under the same syllabus or different syllabus makes no difference. In this regard,

the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Isaac Mohanlal would submit that though it is possible to the petitioner''s school to seek permission to

start +1 and +2 course under ICSE syllabus, still the petitioner''s school is inclined to start +1 and +2 course under the Tamil Nadu State Board

Syllabus, because the students who study +1 and +2 course in any stream, other than Tamil Nadu State Board Syllabus, are put to great hardship

when they seek admission in professional courses in this State. He would further submit that because of this difficulty faced by the students, the

petitioner''s school wants to mingle with the Tamil Nadu State Board Syllabus stream. This submission, in my considered opinion, is justifiable and

the same deserves acceptance.

Choosing the study under the State Board Syllabus or different syllabus is the choice of the students. If the petitioner''s school starts classes in

+1 and +2 under the State Board stream, it is for the students to decide whether to continue in the same school or to shift to a different school. So

long as there is rush from the students to join +1 and +2 in the same school, I do not understand why the State Board should raise hurdle in this

regard. Therefore, this last leg of argument advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General is also rejected. In view of all the above, the writ

petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent declining permission to the petitioner''s school to start classes in +1 and +2

is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to grant permission to the petitioner''s school, without any delay, to start +1 and +2 courses under

the Tamil Nadu State Board Syllabus, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected M.P.

(MD) No. 2 of 2013 is closed.