Skip to content


The Madras English Baptist Church, Represented by the Minister and Chairman, Board of Trustees, Rev. J.A.L. Baynes Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Government, Education Department and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1980)2MLJ485
AppellantThe Madras English Baptist Church, Represented by the Minister and Chairman, Board of Trustees, Rev.
RespondentThe Government of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Government, Education Department and ors.
Excerpt:
.....made for the supervision and control of the matriculation schools preparing candidates for the entrance examination to the university of madras. notwithstanding anything contained in section 36, at any time after the passing of this act, if the state government is satisfied that other adequate arrangements have been made for the supervision and control of institutions preparing candidates for the entrance examination to the university, the state government may by notification direct that the said university shall cease to exercise any control over the recognition of such institutions and from the date of such notification the university shall cease to exercise such control. the sole question for consideration is whether matriculation examination for which students were trained in the..........the university of madras.now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 37 of the madras university act (tamil nadu act vii of 1923), the governor of tamil nadu hereby directs that the university of madras shall cease to exercise any control over the recognition of the matriculation schools.2. the appellant herein is the madras english baptist church represented by the minister and chairman, board of trustees, rev. dr. j.a.l. baynes. the appellant's whole sole case was that the matriculation examination for which the appellant trained students in its school was not one of the examinations coming within the scope of section 37 of the madras university act, 1923, and that therefore the order issued by the government was beyond the power of the government under section 37.....
Judgment:

M.M. Ismail, C.J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of V. Ramaswami, J., made in W.P. No. 2478 of 1979 filed by the appellant herein. In the writ petition, the appellant had prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the Court may deem fit, to quash the order of the Government of Tamil Nadu made in G.O. Ms. No. 2037, Education, dated 13th November, 1978. This Government Order stated:

Whereas the State Government is satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made for the supervision and control of the Matriculation Schools preparing candidates for the entrance examination to the University of Madras.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Madras University Act (Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1923), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby directs that the University of Madras shall cease to exercise any control over the recognition of the Matriculation Schools.

2. The appellant herein is the Madras English Baptist Church represented by the Minister and Chairman, Board of Trustees, Rev. Dr. J.A.L. Baynes. The appellant's whole sole case was that the matriculation examination for which the appellant trained students in its school was not one of the examinations coming within the scope of Section 37 of the Madras University Act, 1923, and that therefore the order issued by the Government was beyond the power of the Government under Section 37 of the Act. Section 37 of the Madras University Act, 1923, reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 36, at any time after the passing of this Act, if the State Government is satisfied that other adequate arrangements have been made for the supervision and control of institutions preparing candidates for the entrance examination to the University, the State Government may by notification direct that the said University shall cease to exercise any control over the recognition of such institutions and from the date of such notification the University shall cease to exercise such control.

The sole question for consideration is whether matriculation examination for which students were trained in the matriculation school run by the appellant can be comprehended by the expression 'entrance examination to the University' occurring in Section 37. We are clearly of the opinion that matriculation examination will be comprehended by the expression 'entrance examination to the University' occurring in Section 37. There is no dispute that a pass the matriculation examination enables a person to seek admission to the University course. If so, there can be no doubt that matriculation examination will be an entrance examination to the University. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the expression 'entrance examination to the University' occurring in Section 37 cannot have that meaning and that that expression has to be understood in the background of the same expression used in Section 36 also. We are afraid that this argument is misconceived. The language used in the two sections is different. Section 36(1) opens by saying:

No person shall be admitted to the Pre-University Course or other entrance courses of study in 'the University unless he-

(i) has passed the Matriculation examination ; or

(ii) holds the Secondary Schoool Leaving Certificate and has been declared eligible by the Syndicate under conditions prescribed by the University authorities concerned for such course or courses of study ; or

(iii) has passed an examination of any other University or authority recognised by the Syndicate as equivalent to the examinations specified in Clause (i) or Clause (ii) ; and

(iv) fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed by the Syndicate.

Sub-section (2) of this section states:

No person shall be admitted to a course of study in the University for admission to the examination for degrees of the University in Arts and Science unless he--

(i) has passed the Pre-University examination of the University ; or

(ii) has passed an examination of any other University or authority recognised by the Syndicate as equivalent to the examination referred to in Clause (i) ; and

(iii) fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed by the Syndicate.

Sub-section (3) also uses the expression ,'No person shall be admitted to a course of study in the University for admission to the examination for a professional degree of the University'. Sub-section (4) also uses the expression, 'No person shall be admitted to any course of study for admission to the examinations for titles, diplomas or certificates of the University'. Thus it will be seen that the four sub-sections of Section 36 deal with admission to different courses in the University and prescribe the qualifications that must be possessed with reference to each one of them. Consequently, it will be seen that there is nothing in common between Sections 36 and 37 of the Act, and Section 37 has to be read according to its own language in the normal and ordinary sense. If it is so read, and there being no dispute that matriculation examination is an examination which enables a person, who passed therein, to seek admission to the University, that will constitute 'entrance examination to the University'.

3. The only argument of Mr. U.N.R. Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the matriculation examination being the entrance examination to the University and the only schools over which the University has control being the matriculation schools, the statute could have straightaway used a direct language 'matriculation examination' instead of 'entrance examination to the University', in the words of the learned Counsel, in a round-about way. We are not satisfied that there is any substance in this contention. If once the expression 'entrance examination to the University' occurring in Section 37 includes within its scope matriculation examination, the fact that the expression 'matriculation examination' as such has not been used in Section 37 will not alter the position. Accordingly, we agree with the conclusion of the learned Judge that the order of the Government in question was within the power of the Government under Section 37 of the Act and hence the writ appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

4. As soon as we pronounced this order, Mr. U.N.R. Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant, orally sought the leave of this Court for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court. Having regard to the plain language of Section 37 of the Act, and having regard to the fact that the interpretation of that section does not give room for any doubt, we are not satisfied that this case satisfies the requirements of Article 133 of the Constitution of India so as to justify the grant of leave. Hence the request for leave is rejected.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //