Judgment :- W.P.No.21147 of 1993: In this writ petition which is filed by the correspondent of a school called R.C.Mission School. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the District Educational Officer dated 18. 1993 in Na.Ka.No.A1-693-93. By this order, the department, has ordered transfer of the teachers in the said R.C.Mission school to some other schools under the provisions of Sec.26 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act’). 2. There is a small, factual ground which would be of immense help. The school was being run in a village called Vadakku Andakudi, Illayankudi Circle, Sivaganga Educational District. It is a minority school and the rights and the management of the said school have been transferred to the petitioner by the Arch Bishop of Madurai under an agreement dated 17. 1985. It is the admitted case that the school building and the land belongs to the Church and the petitioner was recognised as the correspondent of the said school. The transfer was recognised by order dated 20.11.1986 subject to certain conditions. It appears that there were some disturbances in the running of the school and it seems that the petitioner was also requested by the village people that he should hand-over the school to the Panchayat Union. Petitioner, then submits that on 12. 1993, the school which was being run by the petitioner was closed. At that time, there were three teachers including the petitioner himself. .3. A complaint came to be made to the Director of School Education, Madras, the Chief Educational Officer, Sivaganga and the District Educational Officer, Sivaganga on 20.2.1993 whereupon the petitioner was informed that an enquiry would be conducted on 22. 1993. Though the petitioner states that no enquiry took place, we have on oath in the counter that the petitioner himself did not turn up for that enquiry complaining of chest pain. Be that as it may. It seems that there were efforts to bring peace between the two groups of the village and more particularly, the group of persons who were opposing the school being run by the petitioner. There appears to be a meeting fixed on 30.4.1993 by the Tahsildar. However, nothing has happened in the meeting and the school remained closed without any student. It seems that thereafter. On 16. There appears to be a meeting fixed on 30.4.1993 by the Tahsildar. However, nothing has happened in the meeting and the school remained closed without any student. It seems that thereafter. On 16. 1993 seeing that the school was not running at all, the Chief Educational Officer, Sivaganga recommended starting of a school and on 18. 1993 he ordered transfer of the teaching staff which also included the petitioner. It is an admitted position that only thereafter i.e., on 12. 1993 that the petitioner filed this petition and stay was ordered by this Court. However, much before that, both the remaining teachers had already accepted the transfer orders and they have not joined the petitioner in challenging the said transfer order. It is also an admitted position that immediately thereafter i.e., on 1. 1994 the Government started a new school and the said school is running smoothly. This order of transfer which is dated 18. 1993 is in challenge in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Government did not help in restarting the school which was closed by some bullies in the village and instead, took a hasty action by transferring the teachers altogether. According to the learned counsel, when it was found by the Government that the school was not being run, then action under Sec.18-A of the Act was bound to be taken and the Government, in spite of not taking that action straightaway proceeded under Sec.26 of the Act by directing absorption of the teachers. Learned counsel also points out that the action of the Government under Sec.26 of the Act was without any jurisdiction. 5. In the counter-affidavit, the Government has admitted that the school was run by the petitioner from March, 1985 till February, 1993 and it is also an admitted position that the petitioner himself had given a letter on 3. 1991 that he was willing to hand over the R.C.Primary School to the Government if the Government takes that management. It seems that the petitioner had given this letter probably sensing the trouble from the village people faced by him in running the school. 1991 that he was willing to hand over the R.C.Primary School to the Government if the Government takes that management. It seems that the petitioner had given this letter probably sensing the trouble from the village people faced by him in running the school. In the counter it is further pointed out that though, the Assistant Educational Officer, Illayankudi had recommended take over the school in favour of the Government, the petitioner himself withdrew his offer by refusing to hand over the school building and the land therein to the Government. In the counter, it is further pointed out that the public of the Village Vadakku Andakudi had sent a telegram on 12. 1993 that the school was closed from 12. 1993. It seems that the villagers were not prepared to allow their children to be educated in the school run by the petitioner. The department goes on to say that on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, the department directed the police to take action on the same and to co-operate with the petitioner in running the school. It is obvious that the petitioner himself after being given the co-operation in his interest, did not even remain present for the enquiry which was held on 22. 1993. It is further pointed out that he complained of chest pain on that day. .6. It is seen from the counter that the department held an enquiry and found out thereby that the villagers were not prepared to send their children unless the school was handed over to the Government. The counter, then goes on to explain the efforts made by the Assistant Educational Officer for opening the school which ultimately failed as the Villagers had taken a firm attitude that they would not send their children to the school. unless the school was handed over to the Government or to the Panchayat Union for being run. It seems that under these circumstances, the Government came to the conclusion that at last, in order to save the future of the children of the said village, a new school should be opened by the Government in the said village and the teachers should be transferred. This decision was taken by the Chief Educational Officer, Sivaganga in his proceedings No.16573-E1-91, dated 16. 1993. This decision was taken by the Chief Educational Officer, Sivaganga in his proceedings No.16573-E1-91, dated 16. 1993. In the counter, the Government further points out that the minimum average attendance for the continuance of the primary school according to G.O.Ms.No.250, dated 22. 1964, was fixed as 20. But, right for five months since 12. 1993 there was nil attendance and the petitioner was not able to run the school at all. Under such circumstances, they plead, the decision to transfer the teachers was taken and it was only in the interest of the petitioner and the other two teachers. 7. Learned Special Government Pleader supported the counter, reiterated the same and indicated that apart from what was said in the counter, if the petitioner can, he may still run the school by managing the circumstances. However, the petitioner himself was not prepared to do that and the petitioner was only interested in the school being transferred to some other village which was not possible. In the counter in the last paragraph this stand is reiterated by the Government by saying that the petitioner can run the school if he is prepared to run the school by gathering enough strength of students required under law and as per the rules, and if so, the teachers would be re-transferred, otherwise it is open to the petitioner to accept the offer of transfer elsewhere. Learned Special Government Pleader very fairly suggested that the Government still stands by to what is stated in the counter. In view of this, really speaking nothing in wrong if the Government proceeded under Sec.26 of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, invited my attention to Sec.18-A of the Act wherein it is suggested that where the management was not in a position to run the school. an officer should be appointed by the Government. It is not a right of the management, much less of the petitioner, to insist upon the appointment of an officer concerned. It is in the discretion of the Government to take action under Sec.18-A of the Act. Sec.18-A of the Act does not provide any right. Therefore, the argument is clearly not acceptable that the Government ought to have acted under Sec.18-A of the Act. Besides, learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that the action could be taken only when the school is running. Sec.18-A of the Act does not provide any right. Therefore, the argument is clearly not acceptable that the Government ought to have acted under Sec.18-A of the Act. Besides, learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that the action could be taken only when the school is running. He pointed out that in this case in fact, for five months the school was not running and there was no average attendance. He also says that there is no occasion for taking action under Sec.18-A of the Act. The explanation for not taking action under Sec.18-A of the Act appears to be reasonable and acceptable. .9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the action on the part of the Government under Sec.26 of the Act was without jurisdiction. Considering the language of Sec.26 of the Act, I do not think so. In fact, where the job of the teacher goes in jeopardy because of the retrenchment as also because of the reduction in strength of the pupils, it would be competent for the government to appoint such teachers, who became surplus, in any other school or institution maintained by the Government or any such private schools, as the case may be, The Government has found that there is not even a single student in the school in question and therefore, those teachers has necessarily become surplus teachers. In that view, when the Government passed an order dated 18. 1993. it cannot be said that the Government has committed an error in passing the order. In that view of the matter. this writ petition has no merits and this writ petition is dismissed. 10. However, an observation is made that if the petitioner is prepared to run the school at the village and has further gathered strength, the petitioner would be allowed to run the school. Learned Special Government Pleader has already pointed out that the recognition of the school has not still been withdrawn in view of the stay granted by this Court. He further said that they decided the matter regarding recognition or continuance on the basis of the situation prevailing then. No costs. W.P.No.5208 of 1996. 11. The petitioner herein who was also the petitioner in W.P.No.21147 of 1993 had challenged the order of transfer dated 18. 1993. He further said that they decided the matter regarding recognition or continuance on the basis of the situation prevailing then. No costs. W.P.No.5208 of 1996. 11. The petitioner herein who was also the petitioner in W.P.No.21147 of 1993 had challenged the order of transfer dated 18. 1993. As a sequel to the fact, the petitioner seems to have applied to the Government for permitting him to transfer the school to a place called Thiruvengadam. It seems that the Government has rejected that application by order dated 2. 1996 in Roc. No.18205-E.J.95. It is this order refusing permission to transfer the whole school to Thiruvengadam is challenged before this Court in the present writ petition. 12. Learned counsel pointed out that after it had become impossible for him to run the school in the village where it was being run for seven or odd years, he had sought for the transfer of the school and that considering that there was no school at Thiruvengadam permission ought to have been granted to transfer the school to Thiruvengadam. 13. Learned Special Government Pleader on the basis of the counter affidavit pointed out that this was not possible as the following three conditions would be required for the transfer of the school. Condition No.1: The new locality is within a reasonable distance from the old locality. Condition No.2: The pupils of the old locality attend the school in the new locality. Condition No.3: Old registers would be continued in the school in the new locality. 14. Learned Special Government Pleader states that it was an admitted position that the village Thiruvengadam is about 16 km. away from the village Vadakku Andakudi and therefore. It was impossible for the same students to go. He also pointed out that it was accepted position that the villagers of Vadakku Andakudi were not prepared to allow their children to go to the school managed by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not claim rightful transfer of the whole school. 15. However, an offer has been made that if the petitioner wanted to start a new school at Thiruvengadam, his application would still be considered if he was able to fulfil all the conditions for starting a new school including necessary strength of students. It is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the village Thiruvengadam is 16 km. It is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the village Thiruvengadam is 16 km. away from the village Vadakku Andakudi. It is also fairly admitted by the petitioners counsel that the same students or the students of village Vadakku Andakudi could not be expected to go and attend the school at Thiruvengadam. It is obviously reasonable that it would be impossible to find fault with the Governments decision to reject the application for transfer. It is in that view, this petition also has no merits and must be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed without costs, however, with an observations that if the petitioner is interested, he may apply afresh for starting a school at Thiruvengadam and the said application would be considered on its own merits as per the offer given by the Government in the counter. 16. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed with the above observations without costs. Consequently, W.M.Ps. are dismissed.