Saturday, 18 May 2013

மாணவிக்கு மாற்றுச் சான்றிதழை தர மறுத்த தனியார் பள்ளி - நஷ்டஈடு வழங்க நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட் உத்தரவு....

மாணவிக்கு மாற்றுச் சான்றிதழை தர மறுத்த தனியார் பள்ளி - நஷ்டஈடு வழங்க நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட் உத்தரவு

பதிவு செய்த நாள்: மே 18, 2013, 05:16 IST

சென்னை: "மாணவிக்கு மாற்றுச் சான்றிதழை தர மறுத்த, தனியார் பள்ளி, பாதிக்கப் பட்டவருக்கு உரிய நஷ்டஈடு வழங்க வேண்டும்' என, நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.

சென்னை, வியாசர்பாடியைச் சேர்ந்த ரவி என்பவர், வியாசர்பாடி, டான் பாஸ்கோ பள்ளி நிர்வாகத்திற்கு எதிராக, மாவட்ட நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட்டில் தாக்கல் செய்த மனு:கடந்த, 2007-08ம் கல்வியாண்டில், என் மகள் ரம்யா மற்றும் ஜெகன், எதிர் மனுதாரர் பள்ளியில், முறையே, மூன்றாம் வகுப்பு மற்றும் ஆறாம் வகுப்பு படித்து வந்தனர்.

தண்டனை என்ற பெயரில், 2007 மார்ச், 28ம் தேதி முதல், ஏப்ரல், 4ம் தேதி வரை, ரம்யாவை, இருட்டறையில் சிறை வைத்தனர். இதுதொடர்பாக, முதல்வர் தனிப் பிரிவு, கல்வித் துறை அதிகாரி மற்றும் மனித உரிமைகள் அமைப்பில் புகார் செய்யப்பட்டது.இச்சம்பவம் குறித்து, உதவி கல்வி அலுவலர் விசாரணை நடத்தினார். பின், பள்ளி நிர்வாகத்துடன் சமாதானம் ஏற்பட்டதையடுத்து, ரம்யாவை மட்டும் பள்ளியில் சேர்த்துக் கொள்ள, ஒப்புக் கொண்டனர். அவளை பள்ளியில் அனுமதித்த பின், திடீரென பள்ளியை விட்டு வெளியேற சொன்னதுடன், மாற்றுச் சான்றிதழையும் தர மறுத்தனர்.இவ்வாறு மனுவில் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

மனுவை விசாரித்த, சென்னை (வடக்கு) நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட், சம்பந்தப்பட்ட பள்ளி நிர்வாகத்தின் செயல்பாட்டை சேவை குறைபாடாக கருதி, பாதிக்கப்பட்ட மனுதாரருக்கு, 50 ஆயிரம் ரூபாய் நஷ்டஈடு வழங்க உத்தரவிட்டது.இந்த உத்தரவை எதிர்த்து, பள்ளி நிர்வாகம், மாநில நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட்டில் தாக்கல் செய்த மேல்முறையீட்டு மனுவில், "எதிர்மனுதாரர், தன் விருப்பப்படியே, அவரின் மகள் ரம்யாவை பள்ளியை விட்டு நிறுத்தினார். அவருக்கு, மாற்றுச் சான்றிதழ் உடனடியாக வழங்கப்பட்டது. எதிர்மனுதாரர், பள்ளி நற்பெயரை கெடுக்கும் வகையில் செயல்பட்டுள்ளதால், மாவட்ட நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட்டின் தீர்ப்பை ரத்து செய்ய வேண்டும்' என, தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

மனுவை விசாரித்த, மாநில நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட் நீதிபதி ரகுபதி, உறுப்பினர் சம்பந்தம் ஆகியோர் பிறப்பித்துள்ள உத்தரவு: ஜெகன், சம்பந்தப்பட்ட பள்ளி நிர்வாகம் மீது கூறிய குற்றச்சாட்டை ஏற்க முடியாது. ஆனால், மாவட்ட நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட்டின் உத்தரவிற்கு பிறகே, அவரின் மகள் ரம்யாவின் மாற்றுச் சான்றிதழை அளித்துள்ளனர். எனவே, மாவட்ட நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட் தீர்ப்பை முற்றிலும் ரத்து செய்ய முடியாது. சம்பந்தப்பட்ட பள்ளி நிர்வாகம், எதிர்மனுதாரருக்கு, 25 ஆயிரம் ரூபாய் நஷ்டஈடு வழங்க வேண்டும். இவ்வாறு உத்தரவில் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.




Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. REGUPATHI - PRESIDENT

(Against order in C.C.NO.41/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North)


1. Don Bosco School, Vysarpadi, Chennai- 600 039, rep. by its Headmaster

2. Don Bosco School, Vysarpadi, Chennai – 600 039, rep. by its Correspondent                                             

M/s. K. Baskar - Counsel for Appellants / Opposite parties


1. Minor R. Ramya
2. Minor R. Gegan
rep. by their father and natural guardian R.G.Ravi, No.409-C. Kalyanpuram, Vysarpadi, Chennai- 600 039

M/s. V. Balaji - Counsel for Respondents/ Complainants

The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.25.11.2008 in CC. No.41/2008.

          This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 05.04.2013.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on bothsides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:


1.          The opposite parties aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, preferred the present appeal. 

2.       The case of the complainant is that their two children by name Ramya and Jegan, studying in 3rd standard and 6th standard respectively, in the school of the opposite parties.  During the academic year 2007-2008, it is alleged that the children were harassed by the teaching staff of the opposite parties, by inflicting severe punishment, especially against one of the child Ramya, by confining her in a dark room from 28.3.2007 to 4.4.2007.  A complaint was given to the education authority, Human Rights Organisation and Chief Minister’s Cell.  An enquiry was conducted by AEO, and in the presence of an advocate appointed by the Legal Aid, a compromise was entered into between the complainant and the School authorities, and the dispute was solved.  However, they have agreed to admit Minor Ramya into school and refused to give admission to Jegan, and even in so far as the child Ramya is concerned, after allowing her to attend the school, sent her out and refused to give the Transfer Certificate, resulting in the complaint before the District Forum. 

3.       The opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant, and it was only the complainant who precipitated the issue for reprimanding the children for their wrong doing, and the complaint itself is not maintainable. 

4.       The District Forum, after considering the rival contentions, came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost.

5.       The learned counsel for appellant submitted that they are running a Government aided school and they do not charge fee upto 5th standard, and their teachers never ill-treated at any point of time, and infact the allegation given by the complainant has been withdrawn and the dispute has been compromised.  It is further contended that they have not collected any fees from the second child, and he was not at all studying for the subsequent academic year.  Even the child Ramya voluntarily stopped attending the school, and when the transfer certificate was demanded, it was immediately given.  It is further submitted that the order of compensation and cost is too heavy, and since the complainant has approach the media, the name of the school is damaged in the eye of public, and the school has not committed any deficiency, the order impugned may be set aside. 

6.       Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant submitted that admittedly both children were studying in the school of the opposite party, and the complainant being the father of the children, normally will not throw baseless allegations and submitted that even in the letter of withdrawal of the complaint, it has been specifically mentioned, and contended that such withdrawal was done, in view of the apology tendered by the school authorities.   The opposite parties though admitted the first child, refused to allow her to continue her studies and failed to admit his son, and Transfer Certificate of Ramya itself was given to the complainant, only on the direction issued by the District Forum, and under such circumstances the allegation made by the complainant is substantiated.  Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 

7.       We have heard the arguments advanced by both parties, perused the materials on record, and the order impugned. 

8.       Admittedly, both the children of the complainant were studying in the school of the opposite party in the academic year 2007-2008.  A complaint was given to the AEO and other authorities, and the complainant sought the help of Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authorities. A compromise was effected by the AEO and as per Ex.A4 and A5 dt.13.7.2007, the complainant has withdrawn the allegation by specifically stating that such harassment shall not be repeated to the children, By letter dt.25.7.2007 Ex.A7, addressed to the Tamil Nadu Legal Service Authorities, it has been mentioned by the complainant while thanking the service rendered, stated that the first child has been admitted in the school and such an admission has been refused for the second child and made a request that the school authorities/ opposite parties may be persuaded to admit the second child also.  It appears that admittedly the second child was not admitted.   Though the child Ramya was admitted, she could not continue her studies and opposite party referred to give TC, due to someother complications  due to someother complications, resulting in the filing of the complaint and only on the direction issued by the District Forum the transfer certificate was furnished to the child of the complainant.  The contention of the counsel for the appellant that the allegation was withdrawn as compromised without any condition, cannot be accepted.   On perusal of the compromise letter, it appears that such compromise has been reached only on the assurance and apology tendered by the Head Master of the school of the opposite party.  Admittedly, only on the orders issued by the District Forum, the Transfer Certificate of the first child was given to the complainant. On perusal of Ex.A7, letter sent by the complainant to the Legal Service Authorities, it has been specifically stated that the son of the complainant was not at all admitted and sought for the intervention of the legal service authority for such admission.  Therefore  the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party failed to admit the second child after receipt of fees cannot be accepted and the observation made by the District Forum, with regard to the complainant’s second child is hereby set aside.  However, in so far as the first child is concerned, the allegation of the complainant is substantiated.   Hence the appeal is liable to allowed.  In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the award of compensation of Rs.50000/- is on the higher side, and is restricted to Rs.25000/-. 

9.       In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, modifying the order of the District Forum in CC.No.41/2008 dt.25.11.2008, reducing the compensation to Rs.25000/- instead of Rs.50000/-, otherwise confirming the order.  There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.




No comments:

Post a Comment


This Blog Spot is meant for publishing reports about the usage of RTE Act (The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009) so as to create an awareness to the general public and also to keep it as a ready reckoner by them. So the readers may extend their gratitude towards the Author as we quoted at the bottom of each Post under the title "Courtesy".Furthermore, the Blog Authors are no way responsible for the correctness of the materials published herein and the readers may verify the concerned valuable sources.


10 Kms. (1) 1993 (1) 2005 (1) 2009 (1) 2010 (1) 2012 (2) 2013 (2) 2014 (1) 2015 (2) 2016 (1) 2018 (1) 2019 (1) 25% Quota for Poor Students (7) 5th Standard (1) 8th Standard (1) Abdul Kalam (1) ABIDe (1) Accountancy (1) Act (2) Admission criteria (2) Aided Schools (3) Allahabad High Court (1) Amendment (1) Andhra Pradesh (1) Answer Sheet (2) Article (22) Avinash Mehrotra case (1) Bangalore (1) Bar-coded Answer Sheet (1) Bare Acts (1) Best Teachers Awards (1) Bihar (1) Bill (1) Biology (1) Board Exams (6) Botany (1) Caning (1) Cartoon (1) CBSE (5) Character Code (1) Cheating (1) Chemistry (1) Chennai (1) Chief Minister (1) Child Rights and You (CRY) (1) Children (3) Christians (1) CIC (1) Closure (1) Commission for Protection of Child Rights (1) Compulsory pass (1) Corporal punishment (1) Curse (1) Delhi High Court (2) Demerits (1) Diary (1) Dinamalar (4) Dinamani (8) Directory (1) Disobeying order (1) Display Board (1) Do's and Don'ts (1) Do's and Dont's (1) Don Bosco School (1) Download (2) Dress Code (1) Editorial (1) Education (4) Education Department (2) Exam Materials (1) Examinations (16) FAQs (1) Fee defaulter (1) Fees Determination Committee (2) Fees Determination Rules (1) Fine (1) Five Judges Bench (1) Foolish Policy (1) Frontline (1) Fundamental Right (2) Gazette (1) Goa CM (1) Good Manners (1) Govt. Schools (4) Govt. Servants (1) Grace Marks (1) H.Sc. (7) Hair cut (1) Hills (1) How to Learn (1) HRD Ministry (1) Implementation (1) Income Certificate (1) Indian Kanoon (2) Interview (1) Judgment (2) Karnataka (2) Kids (3) KUSMA (1) Labour Acts (1) Labour Laws (1) Links (3) Madras High Court (7) Madurai (1) Madurai Bench (1) Manapet Govt. School (1) Maths (2) Matriculation Schools (2) Merits (1) MGR (1) Mid Day Meal Scheme (1) Minimum Land requirements (3) Minor School Students (1) Minority Institutions (1) Mountains (1) National Building Code (1) NCF (1) New Indian Express (1) New Pattern of Exam (1) NGO (1) Online (1) Opinion (1) Parents (2) Personal Liberty (1) Plus 1 Exam (1) Plus 2 Exam (7) Politicians (1) Pondicherry (10) Poor Students (2) Practical Examination (1) Preparedness (1) President of India (1) Private Schools (8) Public Exam (1) Punishment (1) Punjab (1) Question Paper (3) Recognition (3) Results (4) Right to Life (1) RTE Norms (1) RTE Rules (2) RTI (1) RTO (1) Rules (1) S.V.Chittibabu Commission (1) Safety standards (1) Salient features (1) Samacheer Kalvi (6) School Bags (2) School Buildings (1) School students (1) School Vehicle (1) Schools (3) Science (1) Secondary Education Board Bill (1) Selling Books (1) Service Book (1) Song (1) SSLC (12) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (1) Student (1) Summer Vacation (1) Supreme Court (5) Syllabus (1) Tamil Nadu (9) Tamil Subject (1) Teachers (3) Teachers' Day (2) THE HINDU (7) Thirukural (2) Three Judges Bench (2) Time Table (2) Times of India (1) TIPS (2) Toilets (1) Tough & Easy (1) Traffic Rules (1) Transfer Certificate (1) Two-wheeler (1) Unaided Schools (5) Uniforms (1) Upholding RTE Act (3) USE Act (1) Uttar Pradesh (1) Walking (1) Who's Who (1) Wikipedia (1) Window of opportunity (1) Young Wards (1) Zoology (1) எது சமச்சீர்க் கல்வி? (2) எந்த குழந்தையும் நல்ல குழந்தைதான் (1) கல்வி கற்கும் வழி (1) தி இந்து (1) மன அழுத்தம் (1) முப்பருவ கல்விமுறை (1)

Popular Posts