Rajasuriya rep. by his father and natural guardian, S. Sakthivel and Kavin Raj rep. by his father and natural guardian vs The Direct of School Education, The Inspector of Matriculation Schools and The Sengundhar Preparatory School

S.S. Subramani, J.—Both these writ petitions are filed for similar relief by two students of the third Respondent school. In writ petition No. 7964 of 1998, the Petitioner seeks for writ of certiorari mandamus calling for the records of the third Respondent in its order dt. 25.4.1998 and quash the same and direct the third Respondent to admit the student for the academic year 1998-99 in the III standard and pass such further orders.

In Writ petition No. 8812 of 1998, the Petitioner therein seeks admission to the I standard in the same school. The facts are similar.

One of the teachers of the third Respondent school punished the Petitioner in W.P. No. 7964 of 1998 for not having prepared the home work. The punishment was little severe and the matter was reported to the authorities. The headmistress of the school agreed to look into the matter and subsequently, the teacher was also removed from service. Not satisfied with the punishment, the parents of these Petitioners along with a politician created an atmosphere in the school and the normal functioning of the school itself was affected. By the impugned order, the third Respondent directed the parents to take transfer certificate of these students. The same is challenged in these writ petitions

A detailed common counter affidavit has been filed by the third Respondent justifying their action. It is said on 17.3.98, one teacher by name Renuka Devi beat the Petitioner in W.P. No. 7964 of 1998 for the reason that he did not work out the mathematics problems. The parents contacted the headmistress and wanted to get an assurance that necessary action will be taken. On the nest day, in spite of the assurance, a politician by name Senthil Kumar, District Organiser of the Student Wing of the Ruling Party along with the parents of the Petitioners entered the school premises and made sweeping allegations and used filthy and vulgar languages against the Headmistress and other women teachers. The same was made in the presence of other parents who requested them not to create any problem. But, Senthil Kumar along with the parents of these Petitioners did not care the advice and continued to shout and created a scene for some time and dispersed. On the same day, the very same persons started blocking the road on the main road before the school premises. Thereafter, the teacher herself was removed from the service. Even after removal of the teacher, they were not satisfied. The Petitioners and other persons again started giving problems and caused annoyance and panic to the staff members and students. It is under those circumstances, the parents of these Petitioners were advised to receive the transfer certificates which according to the management is in the best interest of the school as well as in the interest of other students and the Petitioners, themselves. It is further said that on 18.6.98, the Petitioners'' parents along with the politician Senthil Kumar again created problems and they locked the school main gate while the parents, students and teachers were inside the school premises. They were adamant in disrupting the smooth functioning of the school at every stage and it is only because of the high-handedness taken by these persons, to create a peaceful atmosphere in the school premises, such an action had to be taken. It is further said that if these students are further allowed to be admitted that will create a bad precedent and even the discipline of the school will be affected. The Headmistress of the school must be given the right to take such decisions as are necessary for the discipline and to maintain peaceful atmosphere in the educational institutions. It prayed for the dismissal of the writ Petitioners.

A detailed reply affidavit was also filed by the Petitioners, wherein they say that even though the teacher has obtained punishment, they have now become the victims of an expulsion form the school, that is victims themselves are now dismissed. That apart, under the Act and Rules governing the educational institutions transfer certificate cannot be issued against provisions of those laws.

In both these case, orders were issued by the third Respondent as early as in April 1998 and these writ petitions are filed only after the school re-opened in June 1998.

One thing that is admitted by both sides is that one Renuka Devi punished the Petitioner in W.P.7964 of 1998 and thereafter pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, the teacher has been removed from service. The matter ought to have ended there. It is further clear from the counter affidavit that the Headmistress assured the parents of these Petitioners that necessary action will be taken against the teacher. Instead of heeding to that request, they created a scene with the help of a politician and in the presence of other teachers, parents and students to abuse the Headmistress. It is also come out in evidence that after the impugned order was passed, the very same politician with the parents of these Petitioners again came to the school, blocked the gate and used all filthy languages.

An education institution is not a place for a politician and no politician is expected to enter the school premises and make scenes which will cause obstruction to the peaceful atmosphere. It is at the instance of parents of the Petitioners herein and other persons along with the politician abused the Headmistress and created an ugly scene.

The Senior Counsel for the Respondent submitted that under the above circumstances all the other teachers also felt that if the Petitioners were allowed to join the school, they cannot work in a peaceful atmosphere and for the better peaceful atmosphere in the educational institutions, the transfer certificate was directed to be given. It is not a disciplinary proceeding but the Headmistress has taken the best interest of the institution. The Petitioners also cannot get that must regard or affection from the teachers as before, after having created such a scene. Under the above circumstances, the management has done the best possible thing and thought that a peaceful atmosphere could be created only if both the teacher and the students are taken away from the school. The teacher has already been punished and the students are also directed to take their transfer certificate. In the reply affidavit, subsequent event that is narrated in the counter is only sought to be explained and they justify the action for one reason or the other. When the question involved is with respect to an educational institution, apart from considering the provisions of law and the technicalities of the arguments based on the Principle of Natural Justice, I feel that, it is only proper that the authorities of the institutions must be given the right of exercising their discretion as to whether to retain a student or not. It is not a case of dismissal and their future prospects are also not affected in any way. The Children are also studying in III and I standards only and they can get admission in any other school. For the sake of the students, no reasonable Headmistress will cause the destruction of the institution. Taking into consideration the best interest of the institution and also taking into consideration the right of the Headmistress in taking disciplinary action in an educational institution and her right to create a peaceful atmosphere, I feel that the writ petitions are misconceived. The third Respondent has also placed before me the correspondence which the Headmistress had to write to the police officials for creating a better atmosphere in the school.

As contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner it is not the victims who are again asked to suffer the consequence. The victims are asked to find out a place of better atmosphere for their own future. The parents who have sworn to the affidavit have also not taken into consideration the future of the children and have resorted to these litigations. In fact, I wanted the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to withdraw the writ petitions and asked the children to be admitted in some other school. But, unfortunately his clients did not agree for the same.

An argument is also put forward that at this stage, the children could not be admitted and at least for this year the Petitioners have to be allowed to continue at the same school. That argument cannot be accepted since the transfer certificate was directed to be given even in April 1998 and none of the Petitioners took any steps to have the children admitted in other schools. Only after the schools re-open, they filed these writ petitions, compelling the school to admit them. Whatever may be legal right, the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only discretionary. If the parents are also responsible for the action, the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised in their favour. In this connection, it must also be noted that five other students who were given transfer certificates connected with this misconduct have already left the school.

I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and hence, they are dismissed. Consequently, the connected, W.M. Ps. are also dismissed. The writ petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,500/- each.