1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.09.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.790 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 V.Shanmuganatha Sethupathy .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram Dist. 3.The Head Master, Hirathul Jamaliya Muslim Hr. Sec. School, Paramakudi, Ramanathapruam District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to take necessary action against the third respondent and allow the petitioner to continue his XII standard studies and enabling the petitioner to sit for the examination for the year 2010-2011. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthilkumar For respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.S.Chandrasekar, Government Advocate For 3rd respondent : Mr.K.Vadivelu ORDER The petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to take necessary action against the Headmaster, Hirathul Jamaliya Muslim Higher Secondary School, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, the third respondent herein, allow the petitioner to continue his 12th standard studies, and enable him to sit for examination for the year 2010-2011. 2.In the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has contended that he has been falsely implicated in a criminal case and that, soon after his release, he met the Headmaster to permit him to attend 12th standard classes, but he was not permitted. Therefore, he made representations to the higher authorities. As the representations and personal requests were not considered, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for the reliefs, stated supra. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, in his counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case in Crime No.27 of 2010 on the file of the Abiramam Police Station, under Sections 302, 201, 364 and 379 IPC. He further submitted that the petitioner has surrendered on 31.05.2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Ilayangudi and later on, he released on bail and that the criminal case is under investigation. The District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, has further submitted that since the petitioner was absent from 01.06.2010, in the meeting conducted by the School Committee, a resolution has been passed to remove the name of the petitioner from the admission register. Thereafter, the third respondent school has sent a nominal roll name list to the Director of Government Examination, Chennai, without including the name of the petitioner. Hence, he cannot be permitted to continue higher secondary course and write the public examination, conducted in March, 2011. 4.No counter affidavit has been filed by the Headmaster, Hirathul Jamaliya Muslim Higher Secondary School, Paramakudi, the third respondent herein. Mr.K.Vadivelu, learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that since the petitioner was continuously absent for more than one month, a resolution has been passed by the School Committee on 30.06.2010, removing the petitioner from the nominal roll. He further submitted that as the examination for the year 2010-2011 is already over, the prayer sought for in the writ petition has become infructuous and for the above submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5.By way of reply, Mr.R.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless and until in the criminal case, registered against the petitioner, finding of guilt is recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction, the accused should be presumed to be innocent. He further submitted that in the criminal case registered in Crime No.27 of 2011, on the file of the Abiramam Police Station, the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that he is a juvenile. He further submitted that the letter, dated 30.06.2010, removing the name of the petitioner from the admission register of the third respondent School, has not been communicated and therefore, he seeks for permission to amend the prayer. 6.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7.Material on record shows that in the case registered in Crime No.27 of 2010, the allegations levelled against the petitioner and two others are that they have kidnapped one Mr.Ramar and took him to a dam in Dindigul District and murdered him by strangulation. The petitioner and other accused are also alleged to have stolen a gold jewel and a Nokia Cell Phone from the deceased. The petitioner and other accused have been arrested and kept in judicial custody for more than 85 days and that the bail application in Crl.M.P.No.1586 of 2010 has been ordered on 27.08.2010. Though the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in a murder case, quite conveniently, in the supporting affidavit, filed along with the writ petition, the petitioner has suppressed the fact of his involvement in a murder case, whereas, he has simply stated that his name has been falsely implicated in a criminal case and that he was released from prison. In the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has put the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 blame on the third respondent Management and others, as if they have failed to take appropriate action on his representation. The contention that the petitioner is innocent in the eye of law till a conviction is recorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction, may not be applicable, so far as the conduct to be maintained in the school. The yardstick, which is applied to a domestic enquiry, can be made applicable in this case also. The standard of evidence, required in a criminal case and domestic enquiry, is entirely different. Simultaneous proceedings can be taken, whether the petitioner is a juvenile or not. In so far as the educational institution is concerned, its sanctity has to be maintained. It is also open to the educational institution to take appropriate decision, subject to procedure contemplated under the rules and regulations, framed from time to time. In the case on hand, the petitioner's name has already been deleted from the admission register. The examination is also over. There are no merits in the writ petition, warranting interference. The request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, to amend the prayer, is refused in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is open to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, challenging the order, if so advised. 9.The writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. gcg Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram Dist. 3.The Head Master, Hirathul Jamaliya Muslim Hr. Sec. School, Paramakudi, Ramanathapruam District. +1 cc to Mr.K.Vallivelu, Advocate SR.No.32821. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.32892. Order made in W.P.(MD)No.790 of 2011 Dated:22.09.2011 3P/6C RPB 26.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/