Aabel Farron vs The Director

2026:MHC:3021
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.07.2026
DELIVERED ON : 23.07.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
and C.M.P.No.11706 of 2026
Aabel Farron
S/o.A.Thainesan
aged 7 years, being a Minor,
Rep. by his father and natural guardian,
A.Thainesan, S/o.Arokiasamy, Plot No.82,
2nd Cross Street, Aravindar Nagar,
Thavalakuppam, Abishegapakkam (Post),
Puducherry-605 007.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Director
Directorate of School Education,
A Block, I Floor, Perunthalaivar Kamaraj
Centenary Educational Complex,
100 ft Road, Anna Nagar,
Puducherry-605 005.
2. The Joint Director
Directorate of School Education, A Block,
I Floor, Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Centenary
Educational Complex, 100 ft Road,
Anna Nagar, Puducherry-605 005.
______________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 04:17:16 pm )

2026:MHC:3021
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
3. Fr.A.Devadoss, Principal
Petit Seminaire Higher Secondary School,
No.355, M.G.Road, Puducherry-605 001.
4. The Chairman
Child Welfare Committee, Ariankuppam,
Puducherry - 605 007.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.9759 of 2026.
For Appellant(s): Mr.Adeesh Anto
for M/s.Adeesh Anto and Associates
For Respondent(s):Mr.R.Syed Mustafa
Special Government Pleader
for R1, R2 and R4
Mrs.Kavitha Rameshwar
for Mr.M.Vaikunth
for R3
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
At the centre of this legal battle is a seven-year-old child,
Master Aabel Farron. Education is meant to broaden a child's
horizon and offer a safe environment to learn, make friends and
______________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 04:17:16 pm )

2026:MHC:3021
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
grow. Unfortunately, this child's early schooling became caught in
the middle of a workplace dispute between his father, a former
Physical Education Teacher at Petit Seminaire Higher Secondary
School, and the school administration.
2. The appellant, represented by his father, has approached
this court challenging the dismissal of his writ petition, being
W.P.No.9759 of 2026, by the learned Single Judge on 30.3.2026.
The writ petition was filed to declare the Transfer Certificate issued
by the school as invalid and to compel the school to re-admit the
child into the Second Standard.
3. A brief look at how the dispute reached this court reveals
two parallel paths of litigation:
(a) The child's father, A.Thainesan, served as a teacher at the
third respondent/school. Following internal disagreements regarding
pay scales and union activities, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against him, resulting in his removal from service on
10.2.2024. The father challenged his termination in W.P.No.9499 of
2024. On 2.2.2026, a learned Single Judge of this court set aside
______________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 04:17:16 pm )

2026:MHC:3021
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
the termination on procedural grounds, granting the management
liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if they chose to do so.
(b) During the pendency of the petition filed by the appellant’s
father regarding employment, interim protection was granted on
28.6.2024, to ensure the child continues his education in the third
respondent/school in the First Standard. Based on the said, the
child completed his First Standard at Petit Seminaire Higher
Secondary School for the 2024–2025 academic year.
(c) At the end of the academic year, on 12.5.2025, the school
issued a Transfer Certificate to the child. The management
maintained that continuing the child's enrollment was untenable
due to the hostile atmosphere and friction created by the father.
(d) When the father filed Contempt Petition No.2973 of 2025
regarding the issuance of the transfer certificate, the learned Single
Judge was informed on 2.2.2026, that the child was continuing his
Second Standard education in another private school. Taking note of
this fact, the court closed the contempt proceedings, observing that
______________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 04:17:16 pm )

2026:MHC:3021
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
forcing the child back into an environment filled with disputes
between his father and the school was not in his best interest.
(e) When the child’s father subsequently filed W.P.No.9759 of
2026 seeking to set aside the Transfer Certificate and re-admit the
child into the third respondent/School, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition on 30.3.2026. It was held that since the
child had already transitioned into the Second Standard elsewhere,
the prayer had effectively become infructuous. Hence, the present
appeal.
4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the
submission made during the earlier proceedings that the child was
enrolled in another private school was an inadvertent error by
previous counsel. He added that the Transfer Certificate remains
physically in the father's possession and the child has only been
attending private tuition classes, without formal school enrollment
in any other school.
4.2. It is further submitted that as per Section 16 of the Right
______________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 04:17:16 pm )

2026:MHC:3021
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, a child
cannot be held back in any class or expelled until the completion of
elementary education.
5.1. In response, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
third respondent/school submits that the third respondent/school is
an unaided minority institution entitled to administrative autonomy
and, therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable.
5.2. It is further submitted that the child was not penalized or
expelled for misconduct. The father has used the child’s enrollment
as a leverage tool in his employment conflict against the school.
Forcing a child back into an institution where his father is in open
conflict with the management and staff would subject the child to
constant distress and anxiety.
5.3. Learned counsel relied on Section 2(n)(iv) of the Act,
wherein the word “ school ” is defined as any recognized school
imparting elementary education and stated to include an unaided
school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses
______________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 04:17:16 pm )

2026:MHC:3021
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
from the appropriate Government or the local authority. She also
drew the attention of the court to Section 12(c) of the Act to fortify
her stand that the extent of school’s responsibility for providing free
and compulsory education qua admitting children in Class I is
restricted to the extent of at least 25% of the strength of that class,
children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group in
the neighbourhood and provide free and compulsory elementary
education till its completion. However, in the case on hand, the
child neither belongs to weaker section, nor to disadvantaged
group.
6. Although learned counsel appearing on both sides
submitted various precedents on the maintainability of a writ
petition against the third-respondent school, we do not deem it
necessary to adjudicate upon this preliminary issue in the present
proceeding. It remains uncontroverted that the very question of
maintainability is under consideration in W.A.No.555 of 2026,
preferred by the school management against the order of the
learned Single Judge directing reinstatement of the child’s father.
We, therefore, keep this legal question open for determination in
______________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 04:17:16 pm )

2026:MHC:3021
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
those proceedings.
7. Having carefully considered the material on record and the
arguments presented, we find no reason to interfere with the order
of the learned Single Judge.
8. The statutory protection under the Right to Education Act
shields children from arbitrary expulsion, physical punishment and
mental harassment. However, the reality of this case is not an
attempt to deny a child his fundamental right to learn. The school
allowed the child to complete the academic year and issued a
Transfer Certificate certifying that he was successfully " Promoted to
2nd Std ".
9. The friction between the school management and the
child’s father has regrettably reached a point of deep hostility. A
school is not merely a venue of brick and mortar, it relies on mutual
trust, respect and cooperation between parents and educators.
Where that relationship breaks down entirely, forcing a seven-year-
old child into the centre of ongoing litigation between his father and
______________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 04:17:16 pm )

2026:MHC:3021
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
the school, it creates a hostile and uncomfortable environment for
the child.
10. In all legal disputes involving young children, the court’s
guiding light is the welfare and best interest of the child. The courts
must avoid using a child as a tug-of-war rope in adult
disagreements. Even if we accept the father’s latest assertion that
the child is currently relying on home tuitions, rather than formal
school attendance, insisting that the child should study only at this
specific school, where his father has engaged in prolonged conflict,
is not driven by the child's academic interest.
11. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the submissions
advanced, recorded that the child is studying in some other private
school. The father cannot alter factual position regarding his child's
schooling status to keep litigation alive. The core relief sought to set
aside the Transfer Certificate and compel re-admission into an
environment fraught with disputes between the father and the
school management, is, in our considered opinion, not beneficial for
the minor child.
______________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 04:17:16 pm )

2026:MHC:3021
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
12. For the aforegiven reasons, the writ appeal is dismissed.
The order dated 30.3.2026 passed in W.P.No.9759 of 2026 is hereby
confirmed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
interim application stands closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
23.07.2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sasi
______________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 04:17:16 pm )

2026:MHC:3021
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
To:
1. The Director
Directorate of School Education,
A Block, I Floor, Perunthalaivar Kamaraj
Centenary Educational Complex,
100 ft Road, Anna Nagar,
Puducherry-605 005.
2. The Joint Director
Directorate of School Education, A Block,
I Floor, Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Centenary
Educational Complex, 100 ft Road,
Anna Nagar, Puducherry-605 005.
3. The Chairman
Child Welfare Committee, Ariankuppam,
Puducherry - 605 007.
______________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 04:17:16 pm )

2026:MHC:3021
W.A.No.1179 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.1179 of 2026

23.07.2026
______________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2026 04:17:16 pm )