Madras HC Lets Thanjavur B.Ed. College Continue Admissions Amid Father-Son Trust Dispute, As No Impact On Its Functioning Was Shown

The petitioner Trust, which runs Dr. S.R.J. College of Education, challenged the Government’s order directing the college’s B.Ed. admission process for 2026–2027 to remain in abeyance until a competent civil court resolved a dispute over the Trust’s management.

The order followed a representation by the third respondent, the petitioner’s father, who the petitioner said no longer held a position in the Trust.

The petitioner alleged that the Government acted without notice and that nearly 80% of admissions had already been completed; the college had continuation of provisional affiliation for the academic year.

The petitioner also relied on earlier writ proceedings concerning the management dispute and the scope of the Government’s inquiry.

The Court applied the principle that internal disputes among members of an educational institution’s managing trust, without demonstrated effect on the institution’s functioning, cannot by themselves justify suspending admissions; students’ educational interests should not be prejudiced by such disputes.

It also required notice and an opportunity of hearing before the Government made a final decision on the third respondent’s representation.

The petitioner invoked Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, concerning closure of a course or class where educational opportunities would be adversely affected, but the Court did not expressly analyse or base its decision on that provision.

The impugned order gave no specific reason why the management dispute impeded the college’s functioning or the admission process, while a substantial portion of admissions had already been completed.

The Court therefore found that the internal dispute alone did not justify stopping admissions and that students’ educational interests should not be affected by it.

Separately, because the petitioner had not been given notice before the order was made, the Court directed that it be heard before the Government finally disposed of the representation.

It further directed the first respondent to inquire into and decide the third respondent’s representation on its merits and in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner notice and an opportunity to be heard, and to facilitate the procedural requirements for student admissions.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.