Easwari Vs. Department of School Education [Madras High Court, 08-06-2016]

Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 – Private School – Charging exorbitant amount as fee from the students – Suicide and Killing of Child – Instead of logically pursuing the remedies available, the husband of the writ petitioner herein has resorted to an extremely violent act of first killing one of the children and then committing suicide himself – writ petitioner now seeks relief of securing free education for the remaining and surviving child and also compensation for the double tragedy of her’s – Held, the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation against the State Government, to say is a milder manner, an extravagant one – State is nowhere responsible for the violent action unleashed by the husband of the writ petitioner.

School Education


BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 08.06.2016

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

Writ Appeal (MD) No.909 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No.5588 of 2016

Easwari …Appellant/Petitioner

-Vs-

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort.St.George, Chennai.

2. The Director of Matriculation School, Office of the Director of Matriculation Schools, College Road, DPI Compound, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

3. The Special Officer, Tamil Nadu Private Schools Fee’s determination Committee, College Road, DPI Compound, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

4. The Chairperson, State Commission for Child Rights Protection, No.300, Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys, Chennai-600 010.

5. The Inspector of Matriculation School (IMS) Office of the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Dindigul District.

6. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Dindigul District.

7. The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul.

8. B.V.M.Matriculation School, Represented by its Correspondent, Vadamadurai Road, Vedasandur, Dindigul District-624 710. … Respondents/Respondents

For Appellant : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J)

This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner, whose writ petition is disposed of, by the learned Single Judge on 29-03-2016.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she had two children, who got admitted to the 8th respondent School, which is a privately managed educational institution. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the said School Management was charging exorbitant amount as fee from the students. In other words, the School Management is fleecing the parents of the students on one ground or the other, instead of confining the collection of fee strictly to one prescribed in accordance with the provisions contained in the

Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009.

Instead of logically pursuing the remedies available, the husband of the writ petitioner herein has resorted to an extremely violent act of first killing one of the children and then committing suicide himself.

3. We are not only disturbed, but stunned to learn this unfortunate development. The distressful economic conditions alone may not have forced the husband of the writ petitioner herein to take recourse to the said action, which can be reasonably attributed to a mental aberration. Since, the writ petitioner has lost one of her two children and the reason for such loss is attributed to the act of demand of payment of exorbitant fee by the School Management- the 8 th respondent, the writ petitioner now seeks relief of securing free education for the remaining and surviving child and also compensation for the double tragedy of her’s.

4. We are at a loss to appreciate the contention canvassed in this regard.

5. Firstly, the act of the husband of the writ petitioner in killing an innocent child out of frustration cannot be appreciated at all. Even if a child cannot be supported reasonably and legitimately to secure him good education, there are well recognized and civilised methods to secure education to the children. The State Government, as a measure of welfare of the Society at large, has been running and maintaining several institutions for promoting the cause of education, so that, the economic distressful conditions of the family would not be a cause for children from dropping out from the academic life. There are also philanthropic organizations which lend support in the Society. Instead of approaching any such organizations the husband of the writ petitioner has taken recourse to a violent measure. Luckily for him, he did not survive but succumbed lest he would have been prosecuted for killing his innocent child. Under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the victims can be compensated by the Courts, but, however such compensation is liable to be awarded for any loss or injury caused by the offence, but not otherwise. In the instant case, the offence unleashed by the husband of the writ petitioner towards an innocent child, if there is one who will have to tender compensation for having caused loss of the child of the writ petitioner, in turn, that would be the husband of the writ petitioner. Since he was no more, he could not be prosecuted. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation against the State Government, to say is a milder manner, an extravagant one. State is nowhere responsible for the violent action unleashed by the husband of the writ petitioner.

6. If the petitioner still feels that the economic condition in which, currently she is living did not provide her a fair chance or option to get her surviving child educated properly, it is open to her to seek appropriate assistance from the Welfare Officer concerned, so that, the surviving child can get admitted in one Welfare Institution or the other where the State Government would bear the expenditure for better education.

7. We do not find any reason to entertain the writ appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.