Irukovel Primary School Mudivaithanenthal vs Chief Educational Officer, VOC District at Tuticorin, Office of the Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin, District Educational Officer, Tuticorin Educational Circle, Tuticorin, Office of the District Educational Officer, Tuticorin, Assistant Educational Officer, Tuticorin Block at Pudukottai, Mr. S. sankarappan, Assistant Educational Officer Tuticorin Block at Pudukottai

A.K. Rajan, J.—This writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondents 3 and 4 in respect of the visit report dated 07.02.1994 in respect of the petitioner''s school and quash the same.

The petitioner is a primary school running under the Private school Regulations Act and Rules. The main prayer in the writ petition is to quash the report dated 07.02.1994 made by the third respondent who was Assistant Educational

Officer, Tuticorin.

In the affidavit certain malafide was also alleged against the third respondent. But, for the purpose of deciding this case, those grounds are not necessary to consider. Therefore, no argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner on that aspect.

The only point for the purpose of disposing of this writ petition is as to whether inspection done by the third respondent is legally valid or not. The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulations Rule-27 is as follows:

Inspection or Enquiry: (i) The competent authority to cause an inspection of or inquiry in respect of any private school, its buildings, laboratories, libraries, workshops and equipment and also of the examinations, teaching and other

work conducted or done by the private school to be made by such person or persons as it may direct and to cause an inquiry to be made in respect of any other matter with the private school shall be the following, namely:-

Schools Competent Authority(a) Pre-primary, Primary and District Educational Middle schools Officer(b) High Schools and Teachers Chief Educational Training Institutes Officer

A perusal of this Rule shows that in a case of preprimary, primary school and middle school, the competent authority to inspect was only the District Educational Officer. Admittedly, in this case, the inspection was conducted by the

Assistant Educational Officer who has no power under the said Rule to inspect the primary school.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that this power has been delegated. No delegation of power has been brought to the notice of this Court. Further, there cannot be any delegation of power when the

rules does not provided for such delegation. Therefore, the Assistant Educational Officer has no right or power to inspect the primary or preprimary or middle schools. Therefore, any act or inspection by the third respondent under this

rule cannot be legally valid. Hence, the inspection made by the Assistant Educational Officer on 07.02.1994 is not in accordance with the rules and is not legal. Therefore, it has no legal validity in the eye of law. Therefore, the prayer in

the writ petition to quash the report is granted and the inspection report dated 07.02.1994 is quashed. Consequently, WMP.Nos.6721 and 6722 of 1994 are closed. No costs.