Court quashes approval by DEO
Tags:
The Madras high court has quashed the approval granted by the District Educational Officer, Kancheepuram to the educational agency/school committee of W.T. Masilamani Mudaliar Higher Secondary School, Walajabad, Kancheepuram.
Justice Vinod K. Sharma who allowed the petition filed by K. Renuka remitted back the case to the District Educational Officer to reconsider the matter, after taking into consideration objections filed by the petitioner.
The DEO was further directed to give personal hearing to the petitioner as well as others before passing final order, the judge added.
According to petitioner, as per the constitution of the Trust, formed by late W.T. Masilamani Mudaliar in 1963, which runs various schools, his family member was to be included as a member of the Trust.
As she was the grand daughter of Mr Masilamani and no one from the family was included as trustee, she requested the trust board to include her in the trust. While so, on the expiry of the term of the educational agency/school committee, the trust sought approval and she sent a representation against approval on the ground that stipulation in the trust deed stands violated in not appointing the family member of Mr Masilamani. However, the DEO granted the approval, she added.
The judge said the authorities have tried to distinguish between constitution of the trust and school committee, to contend that the dispute regarding the trust falls within the jurisdiction of civil court. Whereas constitution of school committee was different.
This contention on the face of it was perverse, as it was the trust, which constitutes a committee and the dispute regarding constitution of educational agency was referred, therefore, in view of the law laid down by this court, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have referred the matter under section 53-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Act to the competent civil court.
instead of granting approval to the educational agency or in the alternative record a positive finding that the dispute did not fall under section 53-A of the Act, so as to enable the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, the judge added.
Post new comment