In an appeal filed before the Madras High Court by a 7-year-old child under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside an order dated 30-03-2026 whereby his writ petition was dismissed, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G.Arul Murugan confirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
The said writ petition was filed to declare the Transfer Certificate issued by Petit Seminaire Higher Secondary School as invalid and to compel the school to re-admit the child into the IInd standard. The child’s father was a Physical Education Teacher at the school and after internal disagreements regarding pay scales and union activities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, resulting in his removal from service on 10-02-2024.
The father challenged his termination by a writ petition, wherein his termination was set aside by an order dated 02-02-2026 on procedural grounds, granting liberty to the management to initiate fresh proceedings. During pendency of the petition, interim protection was granted to ensure that the child continued his education in the said school. At the end of the academic year, on12-05-2025, the school issued a transfer certificate to the child on the assertion that the child could not remain enrolled due to the hostility and friction created by the father.
Thereafter, the father filed a contempt petition regarding the issuance of the TC and the Single Judge was informed that the child was continuing his education in another private school. The proceedings were closed observing that forcing the child back into an environment filled with disputes was not in his best interest. When the father filed another writ petition for the TC to be set aside and re-admission of the child to the said school, the impugned order was passed.
The Court stated that the child’s early schooling became caught in the middle of a workplace dispute between his father and the school administration. After perusing the record, the Court did not find any reason to interfere with the Single Judge’s order. Mentioning the protection to children under the Right to Education Act, the Court stated that in the present case, there was no attempt to deny a child his fundamental right to learn as the school had allowed the child to complete the academic year and had issued a TC certifying that he was successfully promoted to IInd Std.
It was stated that where the relationship between parents and educators breaks down entirely, forcing a seven-year-old into the centre of ongoing litigation between his father and school, it creates a hostile and uncomfortable environment for the child. The Court stated that even if the child was relying on home tuitions rather than formal school attendance, his father’s insistence that the child must study at this specific school where he had engaged in prolonged conflict, was not driven by the child’s academic interest.
The Court stated that the father could not alter the factual position of his child’s schooling to keep litigation alive, and opined that the core relief sought was not beneficial for the child. Thus, the impugned order was confirmed and the present appeal was dismissed.
