ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is at the instance of a minor, who lost her right eye, on account of the inhuman act of beating with a stick by her teacher, seventh respondent herein. The minor has come up with this Writ Petition through her mother for a direction to the respondents to pay her compensation. BACKGROUND FACTS: 2. The minor petitioner is the daughter of a driver. The minor was enrolled as a student in Rathish English Matric School owned by the sixth respondent. The seventh respondent was employed as a teacher in the said Institution. The minor was studying in LKG. 3. The mother of the minor petitioner, in her affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, submitted that on 01 March, 2012, she was informed that her daughter suffered injury in her right eye and she was taken to Vasan Eye Care. By the time she reached Vasan Eye Care, the child was shifted to Aravind Eye Hospital, Tirunelveli and admitted there. The minor had undergone a surgery to remove the sticks from the right eye. The doctors took few pieces of stick from the right eye of the minor petitioner after surgery. The minor petitioner was hospitalized for 9 days at Aravind Eye Hospital. The Experts have opined that it would be difficult to save the right eye. The treatment is being continued. The writ petitioner has already spent considerable amount for treatment. The Management has not reimbursed the amount spent for treatment. The Writ Petitioner, therefore, has come up with this Writ Petition for compensation. 4. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, the second respondent in the Writ Petition, filed a counter-affidavit practically assisting the Management. According to the second respondent, even though the seventh respondent was holding a stick, it was not used against the children. The second respondent wanted this Writ Petition to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. 5. The sixth respondent, in his counter-affidavit, contended that on 01 March, 2012, after the class hours, the students rushed to board the van. While so, the minor petitioner accidentally hit against the stick which was in the hands of the seventh respondent. It was, therefore, a simple accident. According to the sixth respondent, the minor petitioner is now having proper vision after treatment. He is, therefore, not liable to pay compensation. 6. While so, the minor petitioner accidentally hit against the stick which was in the hands of the seventh respondent. It was, therefore, a simple accident. According to the sixth respondent, the minor petitioner is now having proper vision after treatment. He is, therefore, not liable to pay compensation. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition, filed a counter-affidavit indicating that the investigation revealed that the minor petitioner was beaten by a stick in her right eye by the seventh respondent. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7. DISCUSSION: 8. There is no dispute that the minor petitioner sustained injury on her right eye. The sixth respondent has come out with a defence that the minor petitioner fell down in a mess and in that process, she came in contact with a stick in the hands of the seventh respondent. The said contention is adopted by the second respondent presumably with a view to help the Management to avoid payment of compensation. The counter-affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police contains a honest version of the incident. According to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, the investigation conducted by the police clearly proved that the minor petitioner was beaten by stick in her right eye by the seventh respondent. Even though the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, made a clear attempt to help the respondents 5 to 7, the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, very honestly narrated the actual event on the basis of materials collected during investigation. 9. The materials available on record and more particularly, the statement given by the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, after investigation, clearly shows that the writ petitioner was beaten by the seventh respondent with a stick. The minor petitioner sustained injury on her right eye solely on account of the inhuman act of the seventh respondent. 10. The institution in question was recognized by the Government. But, for the recognition, it would not be possible for the sixth respondent to conduct the institution. The District Elementary Educational Officer, who is a public servant, deliberately made a false statement to help the Management. The State failed to take any action against the Management even after the incident in question. But, for the recognition, it would not be possible for the sixth respondent to conduct the institution. The District Elementary Educational Officer, who is a public servant, deliberately made a false statement to help the Management. The State failed to take any action against the Management even after the incident in question. Being the recognizing authority, the State ought to have taken action against the concerned. Similarly, the State has not taken action against the District Elementary Educational Officer, for filing a false affidavit. Even then, I am not in a position to fix liability on State to pay compensation. 11. The issue before the Supreme Court in M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, 2001 (8) SCC 151 , was a case of drowning. The students studying in 4th, 5th and 6th classes of Dalhousie Public School, Badhani, Pathankot were brought for a picnic at Tandapatanindora on the bank of River Beas. The Headmaster deputed two of the teachers for escorting and taking due and proper care of the students. The children were allowed to play in the danger zone of the water without any caution or any warning being sounded. The result was drowning of fourteen unfortunate children. The parents approached the High Court seeking compensation. The High Court directed the school to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- to each of the parents of fourteen students. The matter was taken up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered in extenso the theory of vicarious liability and observed that the degree of care required to be taken especially against the minor children, stands at a much higher level than adults. The Supreme Court observed that the minor children need much stricter care. The Supreme Court said: "15. While the parent owes his child a duty of care in relation to the child's physical security, a teacher in a school is expected to show such care towards a child under his charge as would be exercised by a reasonably careful parent. 16. Duty of care varies from situation to situation - whereas it would be the duty of the teacher to supervise the children in the playground but the supervision, as the children leave the school, may not be required in the same degree as is in the playfield. 16. Duty of care varies from situation to situation - whereas it would be the duty of the teacher to supervise the children in the playground but the supervision, as the children leave the school, may not be required in the same degree as is in the playfield. While it is true that if the students are taken to another school building for participation in certain games, it is sufficient exercise of diligence to know that the premises are otherwise safe and secure but undoubtedly if the students are taken out to a playground near a river for fun and a swim, the degree of care required stands at a much higher degree and no deviation therefrom can be had on any count whatsoever. Mere satisfaction that the river is otherwise safe for a swim by reason of popular sayings will not be a sufficient compliance. As a matter of fact the degree of care required to be taken, especially against the minor children, stands at a much higher level than adults: children need much stricter care." 12. The medical report produced by the writ petitioner clearly shows the treatment given to the minor petitioner. The extent of the injury and the possible loss of sight, are all borne out by records. The records indicate that it would not be possible for the minor to have a right eye vision henceforth. It is as good as the minor petitioner lost her right eye. The Management is, therefore, liable to pay compensation to the minor. 13. The Supreme Court in Deep Chand Sood very clearly indicated that the teachers assigned to escort the students were in the course of employment and as such, the liability is on the Educational Institution. The Supreme Court said: "23. The Management is, therefore, liable to pay compensation to the minor. 13. The Supreme Court in Deep Chand Sood very clearly indicated that the teachers assigned to escort the students were in the course of employment and as such, the liability is on the Educational Institution. The Supreme Court said: "23. Turning attention, however, on to the issue of vicarious liability, one redeeming feature that ought to be noticed at this juncture is that to escort the children was the duty assigned to the two teachers and till such time thus the period of escorting stands over, one cannot but ascribe it to be in the course of employment - the two teachers were assigned to escort the students: the reason obviously being - the children should otherwise be safe and secure and it is the act of utter negligence of the two teachers which has resulted in this unfortunate tragedy and thus it is no gainsaying that the teachers were on their own frolic and the School had done all that was possible to be done in the matter - safety of the children obviously was of prime concern so far as the school authorities are concerned and till such time the children returned to school, safe and secure after the picnic, the course of employment, in our view continued and thus resultantly, the liability of the School." 14. The next question relates to the amount of compensation. 15. The Supreme Court in Deep Chand Sood observed that award of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation cannot, by any stretch, be termed to be excessive. The Supreme Court indicated that a larger amount could have been awarded to the parents. However, it was not possible, in view of the fact that in the normal course of events, the appellate Court ought not to interfere with the award of compensation. It is, therefore, clear that the Supreme Court was in favour of awarding more amount as compensation than the amount awarded by the High Court. 16. The minor petitioner lost her right eye sight completely. The writ petitioner spent considerable amount towards treatment of the minor. By taking inspiration from the judgments referred to above and the permanent disability sustained by the minor petitioner, I am of the view that interest of justice would be sub-served by directing the Management of Rathish English Matric School to pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The writ petitioner spent considerable amount towards treatment of the minor. By taking inspiration from the judgments referred to above and the permanent disability sustained by the minor petitioner, I am of the view that interest of justice would be sub-served by directing the Management of Rathish English Matric School to pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-. (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) as compensation. The payment shall be made, within two months from today, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of registration of Writ Petition. 17. Mrs. C. Padmavathy, the then District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, the second respondent herein, made a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court by filing a false affidavit. Mere comparison of the counter-affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli and the counter-affidavit of second respondent would reveal the falsity of the case pleaded by the District Elementary Educational Officer. I am, therefore, of the view that cost of the litigation shall be borne by the second respondent. 18. The second respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) by way of cost to the writ petitioner. The Chief Secretary to Government, eighth respondent, is directed to pay the cost amount viz., Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) at the first instance, within two months from today and recover it from Mrs. C. Padmavathy, either from her salary, if she is still in service or from her pension in equal monthly installments, if she has already retired from service. 19. The Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20. Before parting, I express my deep appreciation of the fair stand taken by Sri. Vijayendra S. Bidari, I.P.S., then Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, by coming out with a true version of the incident in question.