P. Narayanan vs The District Elementary Educational Officer, The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Mundalapuram Hindu Primary School Paripalana Sabai and The Secretary, Mundalapuram Hindu Primary School Paripalana Sabai

K. Chandru, J.—In both the writ petitions, the Petitioner is one and the same person. In W.P.(MD) No. 344 of 2009, the Petitioner seeks to challenge an order, dated 20.11.2008 passed by the first Respondent, i.e District Elementary Education Officer, Virudhunagar. By the impugned order, the first Respondent approved the Executive Committee of the educational agency of fourth Respondent School (impleaded on 10.2.2010). In the writ petition, notice regarding admission was granted on 20.1.2009. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted for a limited period which stood extended from time to time. The third Respondent has filed a vacate stay application in M.P.(MD) No. 3 of 2009 together with supporting counter affidavit, dated 18.7.2009. The Petitioner also filed an application for fixing an early date in M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2010.

In W.P.(MD) No. 345 of 2009, the same Petitioner challenged an another order, dated 10.1.2009 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to the first Respondent to approve the School Committee as per the representation made by the Petitioner on 19.2.2008 for a period of three years from 9.5.2008. In that writ petition, the challenge was to the order passed by the District Elementary Education Officer, dated 10.1.2009 in which he had approved the school committee headed by O. Jayaraman for a period of two years from 2.1.2008 to 1.1.2010. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay which was extended until further orders by an order dated 21.4.2009. In that writ petition, the third Respondent has filed a vacate stay application in M.P.(MD) No. 3 of 2009 together with supporting counter affidavit, dated 18.7.2009. The writ Petitioner had also filed a fixing an early date petition. In the meanwhile, the first Respondent has filed counter affidavits, dated 12.2.2009 in both writ petitions.

The case of the Petitioner was that Hindu Primary school at Mundalapuram village in Muthalapuram Post was started in the year 1953. By an order, dated 16.7.1953, the D.E.O., Ramnad District had granted permission for opening an Aided Elementary School and a temporary recognition was granted on 30.8.1953. A permanent recognition with aid was granted on 7.4.1955. On 25.9.1957, the Collector of Ramnad District assigned lands free of cost for construction of new buildings. It was the Petitioner who was recognised as a Manager and CorRespondent of the school. He was also working as a teacher in the school from its establishment. Till 1982 he was in service. As an educational agency, he was managing the school. After his retirement, he had requested the Government to take over the school on 1.10.1982 for a period of five years. But the Government did not take any decision to take over the school. Hence he withdrew his request for taking over the school. On 11.8.1987, the D.E.O. had passed an order recognising him as an educational agency as well as the Secretary of the school. The same position was also continued by a further order, dated 1.8.2002. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner was that from 1953 till 2003 for a period of 50 years, he was the sole educational agency of the school.

However, in the year 2002, at the behest of the Panchayat President, some of the villagers started claiming share in the management. They had also stopped children from attending the school. Hence a peace committee was convened in the presence of the Tahsildar and the D.E.O. In the meeting, the Petitioner had stated that he had no objection for the Government taking over the school. He was ready to hand over the school. From 19.10.2003, a direct payment system for grant of salary to teachers was ordered by the Government. This was on the premises that he was not willing to hand over the school to the Government. On 18.7.2006, he submitted an application to the first Respondent to approve the school committee for a further period of three years. But, that request was returned since the case relating to challenge to the direct payment system was pending before the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar in O.S. No. 235 of 2003. The suit was however dismissed since there was no claim for management or for ownership of the school.

In the meanwhile, the third Respondent had registered themselves as a society on 2.1.2008 called as Paripalana Sabha of Mundalapuram Hindu Primary School. On 5.11.2008, the first Respondent informed that he should approach the Civil Court for getting a declaration with regard to ownership of the management of the school. In the meanwhile, an application was filed by the villagers of Mundalapuram to the first Respondent, seeking to recognise the third Respondent as an educational agency. Form-III and Form-IV were also presented before the firs Respondent. Since the Petitioner did not agree for handing over the school, he refused to sign the transfer application. In the meanwhile, the application for transfer of management to Paripalana Sabha was returned stating that they should produce documents relating to transfer. That order was challenged by the President of the third Respondent Sabha in W.P.(MD) No. 8372 of 2008. That writ petition was dismissed directing them to submit an appropriate application form.It was claimed that there was no necessity to get any prior permission from the existing Secretary of the educational agency. Thereafter, by an order, dated 20.11.2008, sanction was granted recognising the educational agency of school which was impugned in the first writ petition. Subsequently, on 10.1.2009, the School Committee formed by the third Respondent was also granted recognition. The Petitioner was forced to file a civil suit before the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar being O.S. No. 15 of 2009 seeking for a declaration and also for a direction to hand over the school.

Since even during the pendency of the suit, the Petitioner had filed two writ petitions, the ground raised by the Petitioner was that an application for approval of transfer of educational agency should be presented by both parties in a form prescribed.The transfer form at present had been signed only by the transferee. No notice was given to the Petitioner before passing the impugned orders. The transfer of educational agency was made illegally and contrary to law.

In the affidavit filed in support of the early hearing petition, dated 17.7.2009, the Petitioner also had stated that despite interim order granted by this Court, he was not able to peacefully administer the school. The authorities had also put a roadblock for the smooth administration of the school. Hence the case is to be heard at an early date.

In the counter affidavit filed by the first Respondent, it was contended that the school was opened by the village people of Mundalapuram and classes were conducted in the common madam of the village. The people of Mundalapuram village made an application on 17.7.1954 to the District Collector for assignment of free lands and funds to the school building. Accordingly, 50% of the funds to the school building and free lands were allotted by the Government on 8.3.1955 and the balance 50% was met by the villagers. The writ Petitioner was only a middle man and not the owner of the school and that except he was working as a teacher of the school, he had no right to claim ownership of buildings. No doubt his request for approval of secretariship of the school committee was done from 10.5.2002 to 9.5.2005. He was never appointed as an individual educational agency and that he was only acting as the CorRespondent. From the year 1983 itself, there were problems between the villagers and the Petitioner due to his misappropriation. He had also voluntarily surrendered all his responsibilities to the Government by his letter dated 8.3.1983. The problem continued to take place till 2003. On 23.08.2003, a peace meeting was conducted by the second Respondent AEEO, Virudhunagar. Because of his recommendation, the direct payment system to the school was ordered on 31.10.2003. The Petitioner''s suit challenging the same was dismissed on 13.11.2006. Since the school was opened and run by the village people and they had also registered a Sabha called Mundalapuram Hindu Aarampapalli Paripalana Sabha to run the school, considering the facts and circumstances, the educational agency was granted approval. Though his office, i.e. the first Respondent had returned the application for compliance, in W.P.(MD) No. 8372 of 2008 this Court directed them to consider their representation. Therefore, their representation was considered. The Petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed a suit in O.S. No. 15 of 2009 before the District Munsif Court. Even before the suit was filed, the two impugned orders came to be passed. The Petitioner''s writ petitions are clearly not maintainable. In terms of Section 53-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973, the matter will have to be decided only by the Civil Court and not by this Court. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.

In the counter affidavit filed by the third Respondent, similar stand was adopted. It was also stated that proper Form-III and Form-IV were submitted by them for approval. In support of their averment, the third Respondent has filed a typed set containing certain documents. It shows that the Government order, dated 8.3.1955 showed that the building funds were sanctioned by the Government under local development scheme and the costs of the building will have to be met by the villagers. A further order, dated Nil (September, 1956) showed that the land was given by the Government for construction of building and that the school should be opened to all communities.

In the present case, the parties are at variance in respect of the ownership and control of the school. The Petitioner himself had lost the earlier suit challenging the direct payment system. He had also subsequently filed a suit for declaration and injunction as admitted by him. Therefore, his present challenge to the recognition granted in favour of the third Respondent as well as recognising the school committee can always be revised depending upon the outcome of the civil suit pending before the District Munsif, Virudhunagar in O.S. No. 15 of 2009.

In this context, the Supreme Court has held that the ownership and title of the property belonging to the school as well as administration of the school cannot be determined in a writ petition. It is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Swamy Atmananda Vs. Swami Bodhananda and Others, . The following passages found in paragraphs 1 and 2 may be usefully extracted below:

"This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-10-1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 15089 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by Swami Bodhananda had been allowed. The said writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents therein to give all assistance to the Appellant in taking over management of the institutions specified therein. The said writ petition was filed having regard to the judgment of the civil court.

2.A decree passed by the civil court must be executed in terms of the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ petition is not the appropriate remedy therefor. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. It, however, goes without saying that the first Respondent herein shall be entitled to execute the decree in accordance with law." (Emphasis added)

Further, the Supreme Court has also held that any dispute relating to control over the educational agency will have to be determined only in a suit in terms of Section 53-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School Regulations Act, 1973 and in such matters, the power of the Civil Court is not excluded. It is necessary to refer to the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Swamy Atmananda and Others Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Others, . The following passage found in paragraph 49 may be usefully extracted below:

"49.A dispute as to who is the real educational agency in relation to a private school is not a matter which in terms of the provisions of the said Act would be determined by an authority under the provisions of the said Act. Section 53-A of the Act carves out an exception to Section 53 there of. In terms of the said provision, any dispute as to the educational institution is to be determined by a civil court having jurisdiction for its decision. The submission of Mr Sukumaran, however, is that the jurisdiction of the civil court is required to be invoked in such matters specified therein by way of reference by the persons interested or by the competent authority. Mr Sukumaran would contend that such a reference would be akin to a dispute pending under the Industrial Disputes Act. We cannot accept the said contention. A party to a dispute may not join the other in referring the same to the civil court.

The party may agree or may not agree therefor. A person having a grievance as against another must have a remedy. The maxim "ubi jus, ibi remedium" is not an empty formality. The jurisdiction of the civil court exemplifies the said doctrine. The jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be held to have been ousted unless it is so, expressly or by necessary implication, stated in the statute. In terms of Section 53-A of the Act, a dispute as to educational agency is concededly required to be decided by a civil court. How the jurisdiction of the civil court is required to be invoked is a matter to be examined by the civil court.

Unlike a private tribunal or a statutory tribunal which would not derive a jurisdiction unless a reference in terms of the provisions of the Act is made to it, the civil court enjoys a plenary jurisdiction. Furthermore, if and when a dispute arises before the competent authority as regards entitlement of an educational agency in relation to educational institutions, the same must also be referred to the civil court. Statutory authority in terms of Section 5 of the Act cannot be said to have any jurisdiction to determine such a dispute. A statute, as is well known, must be read in such a manner so as to give effect to the provisions thereof. It must be read reasonably. A statute must be construed in such a manner so as to make it workable. The wording "referred by the persons interested" would, thus, mean a person who has a grievance as regards claim of other side relating to educational agency of the educational institutions. It can be done by filing a suit before the civil court. The term "persons", which is plural, has been used having regard to the fact that educational agency need not be a person alone but would also include a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or a body corporate in terms of the Companies Act. In any event, if such a dispute within the contemplation of Section 53-A has to be decided by a civil court, it will not attract the bar u/s 53 which applies only to a question which is required to be dealt with or decided by any authority or officer mentioned in the Act.

(Emphasis added)

In the light of the above, both writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.