Judgment : 1. This writ petition is for directing the respondents to allocate the petitioner school as an examination centre for S.S.L.C. examination and the Higher Secondary Examination to be conducted by respondents in March to April, 2001 and the following years. 2. Mr.Silambannan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner school was not permitted as a centre for the examination held in March to April, 2000 by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 5.2.2000 on the ground that the petitioner school did not have the minimum required student strength of 100 for conducting the examinations. In the said proceedings it is stated that in the event of increase of student strength over and above 100, recognition of the petitioner school as centre for examination will be considered. So far, the first respondent has not communicated any order recognising the petitioner school as centre for examinations for academic year 2000-2001 and hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Mr.M.Rathinam, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that to recognise a school as a centre for examinations certain guidelines are recommended by the High Level Committee constituted by the Government for the said purpose in the year 1999 and as per the High Level Committee if the candidates are over and above 100 in Higher Secondary course the said school will be recognised as centre for examination. Admittedly the petitioner school do not have the minimum required strength and therefore as per the guidelines the petitioner school is not eligible for being recognised as a centre for examination. Therefore the prayer as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain grievances were put forth before the District Educational Officer, Tenkasi and the said District Educational Officer, Tenkasi in his proceedings dated 14.1.2001 has observed that the Government School in which the students of the petitioner school are directed to take their examinations, does not have the required facilities for taking the examinations. Further the District Educational Officer has also observed that the Kosha Muslim women students are mode to cross through the places where the other community people are residing and as such they are put to great hardships. Further the District Educational Officer has also observed that the Kosha Muslim women students are mode to cross through the places where the other community people are residing and as such they are put to great hardships. Therefore, the District Educational Officer has requested the Director of School Education to consider the above in giving relaxation to the petitioner school in so far as the strength of the students are concerned for permitting the school as a centre for examination. The said recommendation has not been considered by the first respondent while the first respondent refused to recognise the petitioner school as a centre for examination held in March to April, 2000. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these recommendations should be considered by the first respondent at least for the examinations to be conducted in March to April, 2001. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. It is the consistent view taken by this Court that the petitioner school cannot have any right to insist the respondents to recognise the petitioner school as a centre for examination as has been held in W.A.No.436 of 1999 dated 15.3.1999. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there should be a direction to the first respondent to recognise the petitioner school as a centre for examination even though the petitioner school does not have the minimum student strength as per the guidelines approved by the Government. However, when the order of the first respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner school to be considered as a centre for examination was passed, the observation and the consequential recommendation of the District Educational Officer, Tenkasi made in his proceedings dated 14.1.2000 have not been taken into consideration. In that view the matter, while dismissing the writ petition, the first respondent is directed to consider the recommendation of the District Educational Officer, Tenkasi made in his letter dated 14.1.2000 with reference to the non availability of the facilities in the Government School where the petitioners school students were permitted to take their examination as well as the hardships faced by the kosha muslim women students of the petitioner school while crossing through the places where the other community people are residing for taking their examination. If the first respondent consider that the reasons adduced by the petitioner school are reasonable, the first respondent may consider the question of relaxing the student strength if possible as per the guidelines and recognise the petitioner school as a centre for examination to be held in March to April, 2001. Such orders shall be passed by the first respondent within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.21383 of 2001 is also dismissed.