Madras HC refuses to intervene in school education GO on supervisory powers

Observing that government has passed the impugned orders for smooth running of the administration and not otherwise, a division bench comprising Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh and Justice M Dhandapani, said, “We are of the view that only due to administrative convenience and to maintain uniformity in the system of education and to bring all the institutions in one umbrella, the impugned GOs have been passed and hence the same cannot be treated as one in negation of the statutes by which different educational boards have been set up.” The bench was passing the order while disposing a batch of writ petitions moved by P Ravi and others which included Association of Heads of Anglo-Indian Schools in India (TN Branch) and TamilagaAsiriyarKootani.

The petitioners had contended that private high schools and higher secondary schools are under the administrative control of the Director of School Education while the primary schools and middle schools are under the administration of Director of Elementary Education. While so, the Tamil Nadu government issued G.O.Ms.No.101, School Education Department dated May 18, 2018 restructuring the administrative set up. As per the GO, all the officers in the district level in different departments were amalgamated with the renaming of posts with hierarchies Viz Chief Educational Officer, District Educational Officer and Block Educational Officer in the District level.

Moreover, the assignment of powers and functions was done without reference to the Act and Rules occupying the field. Noting that any such amalgamation of officers in different directorates would result in utter chaos in the administration of education in Tamil Nadu, ultimately affecting the system of education, the petitioners submitted that the GO was issued unilaterally without obtaining any suggestions or objections from the stake holders and without reference to any critical study on the issue. Senior counsel P Wilson appearing for the petitioners contended that conferring powers to an officer coming under one service to carry out the functions of other service governed by different service rules is ultra vires, illegal and suffers from lack of jurisdiction.

Additional Advocate General Arvind Pandian appearing for the State contended that since there were difficulties in involving separate authorities for inspection, regulation and monitoring different kinds of schools in a given territorial jurisdiction, the impugned orders came to be passed.