Judgment :- The writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent dated 110. 2008 and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 112. 2008. 2. The second respondent Matriculation School was started with the object of providing education to the children of the members of the Co-operative Sugar Mill and the children of the staff and other persons working in the sugar mill. The school was recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools. The President of the Co-operative Sugar Mills is the Correspondent of the School who is also the appointing authority in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff. 2(a). The petitioner was appointed as a trained graduate teacher in the 2nd respondent school on 7. 1995. It is her case that even after regularisation of her services, salary was not paid as per Pay Commission and it has been reduced to consolidated pay from 4. 2002. She has been in charge of Scouts and Junior Red Cross and therefore, her presence is required in the school premises and the second respondent has allotted quarters No.4 in the proceedings dated 19. 1995 on the rent of Rs.20/- per month apart from electricity charges and on 17. 1997, at the request of the second respondent, the petitioner vacated the quarters and thereafter, she made representation to provide quarters to enable her to concentrate on scout movements. 2(b). By order dated 112. 2001, the second respondent allotted quarters No.27 in C-1 quarters on monthly rent of Rs.300/-apart from electricity charges and the said rent was subsequently reduced to Rs.250/- p.m. and then to Rs.125/-p.m. since her scale of pay was reduced as consolidated pay. She filed writ petition to implement the Central Pay Commission pay scale and the said writ petition was allowed on 11. 2008. Against that order, the second respondent filed an appeal and obtained an order of stay on 20.1.2009. 2(c). In the meantime, on 112. 2008, the second respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters on or before 31. 2009, by referring to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 110. 2008, which, according to the petitioner, was not served on her. 2(c). In the meantime, on 112. 2008, the second respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters on or before 31. 2009, by referring to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 110. 2008, which, according to the petitioner, was not served on her. Both the orders are challenged on the basis that they are arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also on the basis that the order is based on mala fide intention. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the Director of School Education, it is stated that the impugned order dated 110. 2008 was passed by the first respondent on the basis that no residential quarters is permitted within the school premises. Since the petitioner has been residing within the school premises in the quarters, based on the conditions of Director of School Education (Matriculation) dated 110. 2008 while granting temporary recognition to Standards 1 to 12 in the second respondent school for the period between 6. 2007 and 31.05.2010, viz., no residential quarters should be situated in the Matriculation School campus, the second respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters. It is also stated that the said order issued by the first respondent dated 110. 2008 to the second respondent School was passed on the basis of the report of a Commission appointed after the tragic incident in a school at Kumbakonam which took more than 100 lives of children due to the fire that broke out from a noon meal centre situated within the school campus. It is stated that the first respondent is the competent authority to impose such conditions to the educational agencies as per the provisions of the Code of Regulations. 4. The second respondent in the counter affidavit filed has stated that it is true that the writ petitioner filed a writ petition in respect of salary and against the order passed in that writ petition, the second respondent management filed an appeal and stay was granted by the Division Bench of this Court, based on an order granted by the Supreme Court in a similar case and there is no mala fide on the part of the second respondent in passing the impugned order. The second respondent approached the first respondent for recognition of the school from 6. 2007 and by proceedings dated 110. The second respondent approached the first respondent for recognition of the school from 6. 2007 and by proceedings dated 110. 2008, which is also impugned in the writ petition, the first respondent granted recognition for the period from 6. 2007 to 35. 2010 subject to certain conditions and one of the conditions is that there should not be any residential quarters or commercial operations in the school campus. It was only due to that reason, the impugned order came to be passed directing the petitioner to vacate the quarters. 5. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, she has stated that in similar circumstances, alternative quarters in C-type and B-type were provided in respect of two teachers viz., Tmt. Chandra Kumari and Selvi Jerardin, but, that has been denied in the case of petitioner and she has not been allotted any alternative quarters available. According to the petitioner, in C-type quarters, C-6, C-11 and C-12 and in D-type quarters D-2 and D3 are available and a direction can be given to the second respondent to allot any one of the quarters to the petitioner alternatively. 6. The main contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. Jayaraman, is that the second respondent school is situate in a very vast area, of course, along with the factory premises and without prejudice to the condition No.6 of the impugned order of the first respondent dated 110. 2008, the petitioner can be allotted an alternative accommodation. It is his case that out of the above five quarters, three are vacant. 7. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the first respondent is entitled to grant recognition to the school on certain conditions under the Code of Regulations and therefore, the impugned order dated 110. 2008 issued by the first respondent is well within the powers. Learned counsel for the second respondent would also submit that there are no vacancies available in the quarters and the two quarters which were allotted to the teachers referred to by the petitioner are situated within the mill premises wherein there are no more quarters available. 8. It is not in dispute that the second respondent school is a Matriculation School, which is governed by the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu. 8. It is not in dispute that the second respondent school is a Matriculation School, which is governed by the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu. As per the Code of Regulations, the Director of Matriculation Schools, viz., the first respondent is the authority to grant recognition to schools. Clause 10 of the Code relating to the recognition of a new matriculation school is as follows: “Code 10. Recognition of new Matriculation Schools- (i)Powers to grant permission.- The competent authority to grant permission to open a Private Matriculation School or to upgrade an existing school will be the Director. The application will be made in proforma prescribed in Annexure II. The fees to be paid in respect of every application to open a new Matriculation School shall be Rs.100/-. The fee shall be credited to Government under the Head of Account prescribed by the Department. (ii)A list of new Matriculation Schools permitted to be opened by the Director shall be placed before the Board for information. (iii)Recognition.- The Educational Agency of a private Matriculation School shall apply in the form prescribed in Annexure III for recognition of the school to the Director through the Inspector. The application shall be made within three months from the date of opening of the school. Where a temporary recognition is accorded, application for continuance shall be made not later than three months prior to the date of expiry of the temporary recognition. (iv)The following conditions shall be satisfied for the purpose of recognition. (a) The Educational Agency shall produce a licence permitting the use of the school building as public building under the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act,1965 (Tamil Nadu Act XIII of 1965). (b) Where the licence has been issued for a specific period, the fresh licence shall be produced before the expiry of the period of validity of the said licence. (c) The Educational Agency must satisfy that the school is actually needed in the locality or District and that it has sufficient buildings, class rooms, laboratories, furniture, sanitary facilities and adequate grounds for physical training activities. (d) The Schools applying for Recognition after 1st June 1978 should create an endowment of Rs.1,00,000 out of which 50 percent will be deposited at the time of opening and remaining amount will be deposited in five equal annual instalments. (d) The Schools applying for Recognition after 1st June 1978 should create an endowment of Rs.1,00,000 out of which 50 percent will be deposited at the time of opening and remaining amount will be deposited in five equal annual instalments. In respect of minority schools, separate reference should be made for obtaining exemption from creation of endowment and orders obtained in each individual case. In the case of old schools which have already created endowment the endowment will be limited to Rs.1,00,000. In the case of schools which did not create endowment status quo will be maintained. The schools will be allowed to create the endowment of Rs.1,00,000 from the fixed deposit they have made with the University when it matures. The date of maturity should be intimated to the authority concerned. (e) In addition to the creation of the endowment referred to above, in the case of new schools, the Educational Agency shall also deposit in any schedule bank in the name of the school, a sum equivalent to a minimum of one months salary of the staff employed in the school to serve as a working capital of the school which may be drawn for the disbursement of salary to the members of the staff on the due date in the event of any delay in the disbursement of salary. (f) The Educational Agency in the case of new schools should have fulfilled all the conditions stipulated by the competent authority at the time of according permission to open the school. (g) The school shall be situated in a building which is accessible to all castes and communities. (h) The management of a school shall not appoint any teacher whose certificate has been suspended or cancelled or who has been declared unfit to be a teacher in recognised schools or who has been convicted for offences involving moral turpitude. (i) It shall be open to the competent authority to reject the application of a new school for recognition if he considers that any one of the conditions has not been satisfied. (j) The Inspector may visit a recognised school during school hours." Note: (For amendment vide Ds Procs./RC68733/E3/S1 dated 3. 82 (in the file) The said clause no doubt enables the first respondent to impose various conditions while according permission to open a school. (j) The Inspector may visit a recognised school during school hours." Note: (For amendment vide Ds Procs./RC68733/E3/S1 dated 3. 82 (in the file) The said clause no doubt enables the first respondent to impose various conditions while according permission to open a school. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Clause 10 of the Code applies only in respect of a new matriculation school and inasmuch as the second respondent school is already existing, clause 10 of the Code would not apply, is fallacious. 9. A reference to clause 11 of the Code which speaks about withdrawal of recognition viz., "Code 11. Withdrawal of recognition.- (a) The competent authority for withdrawing recognition of a Matriculation School will be the Director. (b) The recognition shall be withdrawn permanently or for any specified period by the Director after a proper enquiry if the Educational Agency of its authorised representative violates any one of the conditions stipulated for recognition." makes it clear that the first respondent shall be entitled to withdraw recognition on violation of any of the conditions stipulated for recognition. In such circumstances, it is not correct to state that the first respondent would not be entitled to impose any further condition, as such a construction would make the Code impracticable. Further, when the first respondent is the authority to issue recognition for matriculation schools, the power contemplated under clause 10 of the Code certainly would enable the first respondent to impose further conditions depending upon the happening of subsequent events, etc. Such a narrow construction as suggested by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that only for a new school the Director can impose such conditions while granting recognition and for an existing school he cannot impose such conditions, would be antithesis to the Code under which power is vested with the authority to maintain matriculation schools in the light of the objects of the Code. 10. In any event, in the present case, it is seen that the second respondent school which is an existing school has applied for recognition for classes 1 to 12 and on the basis of the inspection conducted by the authority under the Code, the first respondent in his proceedings dated 110. 2008, which is impugned in this writ petition, has granted temporary recognition for the period from 6. 2007 to 35. 2010, subject to 10 conditions. 2008, which is impugned in this writ petition, has granted temporary recognition for the period from 6. 2007 to 35. 2010, subject to 10 conditions. The conditions as seen in the impugned order are, 1. The management shall follow the contents of G.O.No.48 (School Education X2) Department, dated 27. 2004 relating to students safety and any further instructions that may be given specifically, and the school shall not use any building for which approval or licence has not been issued. 2. The school shall not contain rolling shutters, sliding doors and if found, they shall be removed and replaced with proper doors. 3. Classes for Stds. 1 to 3 shall be conducted in the ground floor only. 4. Gas cylinders shall be kept safely in a separate room and the same shall not be placed in any circumstances in the laboratory used by the students. 5. No high tension electric lines shall pass across the school campus. 6. Except the functioning of school, there shall be no residential quarters or commercial shops or any other institutions in the matriculation school campus. 7. The school buildings shall be insured. 8. The school buildings shall contain lightning arrester. 9. The school management shall monitor and remove the things which are against the safety of students and in the school campus there shall not be any partly dilapidated building/partly removed walls, uncovered wells, water tanks and sewage tanks, electric connection accessible to students and waste-heap inviting poisonous insects. 10. The declaration to be given by the Principal or Correspondent shall be given effect to. 11. It is subject to the above said conditions, the provisional permission/recognition was granted to the second respondent school by the first respondent for conducting classes for Standards 1 to 12. In the light of the stand taken by the first respondent as it is seen in the counter affidavit that the said conditions were stipulated after the unfortunate incident that took place at Kumbakonam school and based on the Commissions report, and taking note of the powers of the first respondent as per the Code of Regulations as stated above, I do not see any reason to hold that the conditions imposed are unreasonable. 12. 12. In any event, the conditions were imposed against the second respondent school by the first respondent and so long as the second respondent is bound by such conditions, it is not open to the second respondent to raise any objection regarding the validity or otherwise of any of the conditions. The petitioner being one of the teachers of the second respondent school has no words to say that those conditions are to be held invalid. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing such order dated 110. 2008 by the first respondent imposing conditions, the petitioner was not given any notice, is strange. The petitioner being one of the teachers of the second respondent school is not entitled to any notice regarding the grant of temporary recognition to the second respondent school in the order dated 110. 2008. The conditions imposed by the first respondent which are totally based on safety measures are to be taken for safety and security of the children and it is not open to the petitioner to challenge such conditions. 13. As far as the residential quarters, it is the admitted case that earlier the petitioner was allotted residential quarters along with other two teachers in the school campus. It is the case of the second respondent and also not disputed by the petitioner that the other teachers who were granted quarters in the school campus have vacated the same and the petitioner alone has failed to vacate, and therefore, the second respondent has passed the impugned order on 110. 2008, directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the residential quarters. It is the case of the second respondent that in the vast area, the sugar factory is situated in one portion and the school is situated in another portion. It is not in dispute that in the factory region also there are residential quarters which are given for employees and two teachers who had vacated the residential quarters in the school premises were given alternative accommodation in the factory premises. It is the case of the second respondent that even in the factory premises there are no vacant quarters available as on date and it is not possible to accommodate the petitioner in the factory premises. It is the case of the second respondent that even in the factory premises there are no vacant quarters available as on date and it is not possible to accommodate the petitioner in the factory premises. While that is the stand of second respondent, it is not open to the petitioner as a matter of right to compel the second respondent to provide an alternative accommodation in the quarters in factory premises which are not certainly meant for teachers of the school. 14. Earlier, teachers of the school were given accommodation within the school premises and after the fire incident that took place in a Kumbakonam school, the things got changed and school safety has become a public issue necessitating the first respondent to impose conditions on the schools including existing schools to the effect that residential quarters should not be made available within the school campus and it is, as a consequential measure, the impugned proceedings was issued to the second respondent school. There is absolutely nothing to presume that the order is mala fide, simply because the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition against the management. In the absence of any such mala fide attitude on the part of the second respondent, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that considering the efforts taken by the petitioner in developing the school atmosphere and steps taken by her in scout and other activities, she should be given alternative accommodation or permitted to continue to reside in the same quarters within the school campus. 15. The Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Act, 1920, particularly, the building grant procedure found under Chapter III of the said Act on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to the second respondent school. The second respondent school is not governed by the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Act, 1920. Admittedly, the second respondent school is not an elementary school recognised by the Director of Elementary Education as per the Tamil Nadu Compulsory Elementary Education Act, 1994. It is, in respect of such elementary schools, the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Act, 1920 would apply. Admittedly, the second respondent school is not an elementary school recognised by the Director of Elementary Education as per the Tamil Nadu Compulsory Elementary Education Act, 1994. It is, in respect of such elementary schools, the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Act, 1920 would apply. The building grant procedure as found in Chapter III of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Act, 1920 regarding the suitability of the building, availability of playground, etc. on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable to the second respondent school. Even otherwise, none of the provisions in Chapter III of the said Rules can be taken for the benefit of the petitioner to substantiate her contention. 16. In Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India [ (2009) 6 SCC 398 ], the Apex Court has taken note of arious unfortunate incidents and occurrences which took place in various schools in India due to the poor maintenance of schools resulting in loss of valuable lives of children. The Supreme Court has also taken note of narrow and steep stairs and few exits that hampered the efforts of nearby residents in dousing the flames and in rescuing the children who thronged the school for education, a right guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution of India which makes education upto the age of 14 as compulsory. The Supreme Court has also noticed that the education being constitutionally guaranteed must be provided with safety regulations and directed the school administration to provide safety measures as part of imparting compulsory education. By referring to Kumbakonam incident, the Supreme Court has enumerated safety standards as follows: “In view of what has happened in Lord Krishna Middle School in District Kumbakonam and other incidents which have been enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, it has become imperative that each school must follow the bare minimum safety standards, in addition to the compliance with the National building Code of India, 2005, in particular Part IV – Fire & Life Safety, and the Code of Practice of Fire Safety in Educational Institutions (IS 14435: 1997) of the Bureau of Indian Standards. 41. The said safety standards are enumerated herein below: 1. 41. The said safety standards are enumerated herein below: 1. Fire safety measures in schools: (i) Provision of adequate capacity and numbers of fire extinguishers of ISI mark to be provided in eye-catching spots in each block of the school. (ii) First aid kits and necessary medicines should be readily available in the school. (iii) Provision of water tank and separate piping from the tank with hose reel to the ground floor and first floor. (iv) Fire-fighting training to all teachers and students from Xth to XIIth standards. (v) Fire task force in every school comprising of head of the institution, two teachers/staff members and one member from the Fire and Rescue Department should be constituted. The Fire and Rescue Department member should monitor and make fire safety plan and conduct inspections once in every three months. (vi) Display of emergency telephone numbers and list of persons to be contacted on the notice board and other prominent places. (vii) Mock drills to be conducted regularly. Fire alarm to be provided on each floor and for rural schools separate long bell arrangement in case of emergency. (viii) All old electrical wiring equipment shall be replaced with ISI mark equipments and routine maintenance conducted by the school management in consultation with the Fire and Rescue Department. (ix) No high tension lines should run inside or in close proximity to the school. Steps must be taken to shift them if they are already there. (x) The Fire and Rescue Department shall frame guidelines with DOs and DONTs for schools and issue a fitness certificate which shall be renewed periodically. 2. Training of school teachers and other staff: (i) The teachers along with other staff shall be trained to handle safety equipment, initiate emergency evacuations and protect their students in the event of fire and other emergencies by the Fire and Rescue Department. (ii) They shall also be trained in providing emergency first-aid treatment. (iii) There shall be a School Safety Advisory Committee and an emergency response plan drafted by the Committee in approval and consultation with the Fire and Rescue Department concerned. (iv) Emergency response drills conducted at regular intervals to train the students as well as the school staff. (v) All schools to observe fire safety day on 14th April every year with awareness programmes and fire safety drills in collaboration with the Fire and Rescue Department. (iv) Emergency response drills conducted at regular intervals to train the students as well as the school staff. (v) All schools to observe fire safety day on 14th April every year with awareness programmes and fire safety drills in collaboration with the Fire and Rescue Department. 3.3 School Building specifications: (i) The school buildings shall preferably be a A Class construction with brick/stone masonry walls with RCC roofing. Where it is not possible to provide RCC roofing only non-combustible fire proof heat resistant materials should be used. (ii) The nursery and elementary schools should be housed in single-storeyed buildings and the maximum number of floors in school buildings shall be restricted to three including the ground floor. (iii) The school building shall be free from inflammable and toxic materials, which if necessary, should be stored away from the school building. (iv) The staircases, which act as exits or escape routes shall adhere to provisions specified in the National Building Code of India, 2005 to ensure quick evacuation of children. (v) The orientation of the buildings shall be in such a way that proper air circulation and lighting is available with open space all round the building as far as possible. (vi) Existing school buildings shall be provided with additional doors in the main entrances as well as the classrooms if required. The size of main exit and classroom doors shall be enlarged if found inadequate. (vii) School buildings have to be insured against fire and natural calamities with group insurance of school pupils. (viii) Kitchen and other activities involving use of fire shall be carried out in a secure and safe location away from the main school building. (ix) All schools shall have water storage tanks. 4. Clearances and certificates: (i) Every school shall have a mandatory fire safety inspection by the Fire and Rescue Services Department followed by issuance of a no objection certificate to the school as a mandatory requirement for granting permission for establishing or continuation of a school. (ii) An inspection team consisting of experts like a civil engineer, a health officer, a Revenue Officer, a psychologist, a fire officer, a local body officer and a development officer besides the educational authorities shall carry inspection and assessment of infrastructural facilities before the commencement of each academic year. The team shall submit its inspection report to the District Chief Educational Officer concerned. The team shall submit its inspection report to the District Chief Educational Officer concerned. (iii) The building plans for school shall be prepared only by a Government-certified engineer and the PWD Executive Engineer concerned should inspect the building and award a structural stability certificate. Stability certificates shall be issued by the State or Central Government engineers only and shall be mandatory for granting permission for establishing or continuation of a school. (iv) In very district, one Recognition Committee headed by a retired Judge shall be constituted. Officials from the Revenue Department, Public Works Department, Fire Service, Electricity Board, Health and Education Department and a reputed NGO shall be members. They shall visit the schools periodically and at least the erring institutions as listed by the Chief Education Officer. (v) Conditional recognition/approval shall never be resorted to for any school”. Ultimately, the Apex Court has passed the following order: “47. In view of what happened in Lord Krishna Middle School in District Kumbakonam where 93 children were burnt alive and several similar incidences had happened in the past, therefore, it has become imperative to direct that safety measures as prescribed by the National Building Code of India, 2005 be implemented by all government and private schools functioning in our country. We direct that: (i) Before granting recognition or affiliation, the State Governments and Union Territories concerned are directed to ensure that the buildings are safe and secure from every angle and they are constructed according to the safety norms incorporated in the National Building Code of India. (ii) All existing government and private schools shall install fire extinguishing equipments within a period of six months. (iii) The school buildings be kept from inflammable and toxic material. If storage is inevitable, they should be stored safely. (iv) Evaluation of structural aspect of the school may be carried out periodically. We direct that the engineers and officials concerned must strictly follow the National Building Code. The safety certificate be issued only after proper inspection. Dereliction in duty must attract immediate disciplinary action against the officials concerned. (v) Necessary training be imparted to the staff and other officials of the school to use the fire extinguishing equipments.” 17. We direct that the engineers and officials concerned must strictly follow the National Building Code. The safety certificate be issued only after proper inspection. Dereliction in duty must attract immediate disciplinary action against the officials concerned. (v) Necessary training be imparted to the staff and other officials of the school to use the fire extinguishing equipments.” 17. In such circumstances, when everybody is concerned about the safety measures in school premises, it is too much for the petitioner to contend that she should be provided with residential quarters within the school campus, simply because she has toiled for the betterment of the second respondent school, in view of the fact that the safety measures to children in the school is an important thing as it is a fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, especially after Article 21A has been inserted making education between the age group of 6 and 14 compulsory. In such view of the matter, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the first and second respondents. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.