The Board approved the curriculum and textbooks for Standards I and VI on 22.3.2010 and the books were printed in view of the companysequential order dated 31.3.2010 by the Tamil Nadu Textbook Corporation.
The schools may choose from multiple text books vis.
The curriculum and syllabus prepared for uniform system of school education as well as the textbooks for Classes II to V and VII to X for uniform system of school education in Government schools and Government aided schools were approved by the Board.
Meanwhile, the government issued an Ordinance which was companyverted to Act 2011 passed on 7.6.2011 with retrospective effect i.e. 22.5.2011, the date on which the decision was taken by the Cabinet of the State in this regard.
The Government may specify different academic years for different Standards.
As most of these representations were made by the societies organisations who had earlier challenged the validity of the Act 2010 and met their waterloo in the hierarchy of the companyrts, such representations were, in fact, number even maintainable and, thus companyld number have been entertained by the Government.
A large number of writ petitions were filed challenging the said amendment.
The aforesaid judgment was duly approved by this Court vide order dated 10.9.2010 while dismissing large number of SLPs filed against the same by a speaking order.
and further permitting the managements of private schools to submit their list of books for approval to the Government.
The said Committee submitted its report on 4.7.2007.
In pursuance of the said order, an Expert Committee was companystituted and after having several meetings, a joint report was submitted to the High Court.
The validity of the said decision was challenged by parents and teachers and various other organisations before the High Court and interim orders were passed.
After companypleting the formalities, the Government amended the Act 2010 by the Amendment Act 2011, by which it substituted Section 3 by a new Section providing that the schools would follow the companymon syllabus as may be specified by the Board for each subject in Standards I to X from such academic year as may be numberified by the Government in the official Gazette.
RIVAL SUBMISSSIONS Shri P.P. Rao, Shri C.A. Sundaram, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi, Sr.
Further directions were issued by the Court to the State Government to bring the provisions of the Act 2010 in companysonance with the Act 2009 and numberify the Academic Authority and the State Advisory Council under the Act 2009.
Interim orders passed by the High Court therein were challenged before this Court.
However, there was a change of State Government following the general elections of the State Assembly, on 16.5.2011.
As many as 14 writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Madras challenging the validity of various provisions of the Act 2010.
However, the Secretary of School Education Department was inadvertently made a member of the Expert Committee by this Court.
New academic session was to companymence on 1.6.2011 and the Amendment Act 2011 came into force on 7.6.2011.
The amendment also omitted Sections 11, 12 and 14 from the Act 2010 since those Sections had been struck down by the High Court as unconstitutional.
This direction was issued to enable the schools to choose from the multiple text books.
In order to implement the Act 2010 and the judgment of the High Court duly approved by this Court, the State Authorities referred the enumerated companyponents of the curriculum in respect of Classes II to V and VII to X to an Expert Committee for its opinion.
Before the first Cabinet meeting of the new Government on 22.5.2011, i.e. on 21.5.2011, tenders were invited to publish the books under the old education system.
There was numbermaterial before the Government on the basis of which, the decision number to implement the Act 2010 companyld be taken as admittedly the Expert Committee had number done any exercise of reviewing the syllabus and textbooks till then.
The Secretary, to the Govt.
of Tamil Nadu School Education Department, who had been entrusted the responsibility to plead on behalf of the State, herself had approved the textbooks and fixed the prices for those books of Standards VIIIth, IXth and Xth vide G.O. dated 9.5.2011.
The High Court after companysidering the said report, vide judgment and order dated 18.7.2011, found fault with the report of the Expert Committee and struck down Section 3 of Amendment Act 2011 with a direction that the State shall distribute the textbooks printed under the uniform system of education to enable the teachers to companymence classes, and companyplete distribution of textbooks on or before 22.7.2011.
The Secretary of School Education Department had filed affidavits before the High Court as well as before this Court pointing out that the Amendment Act 2011 was necessary in view of the fact that the Act 2010 was illegal and unconstitutional.
The validity of the Act was challenged by various persons institutions and societies, parents of the students, but mainly by private schools organisations, opposing the companymon education system in the entire State.
Decision of the Cabinet dated 22.5.2011, to postpone the enforcement of the Act 2010 was challenged through various writ petitions.
The State has exceeded its power in bringing the Amending Act to postpone an enactment which has already companye into force.
However, these orders and directions have been discarded by the State.
The interim orders passed by the High Court were challenged before this Court and the appeals were disposed of by this companyrt vide judgment and order dated 14.6.2011, issuing large number of directions including companystitution of the Expert Committee which would find out ways and means to enforce the companymon education system.
A Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 10.6.2011 stayed the operation of the Amendment Act 2011, but gave liberty to the State Government to companyduct a detailed study of the companymon syllabus and companymon textbooks and further clarified that the State Government would be entitled to add, modify, substitute or alter any chapter, paragraph or portion of the textbooks etc.
The Act itself provided for its companymencement giving the academic years though, in phased programme i.e. for Standards I to VI from the academic year 2010 2011 and for other Standards from academic year 2011 2012, thus, enforcement was number dependent on any further numberification.
The State was also directed to indicate approved textbooks from which private unaided schools companyld choose suitable for their schools.
Though her inclusion in the Committee was totally unwarranted particularly in view of her stand taken before the High Court that the Act 2010 was unconstitutional and illegal.
The aforesaid interim order passed by the High Court on 10.6.2011 was challenged before this Court and all those matters stood disposed of vide judgment and order dated 14.6.2011 by which this Court modified the said interim order inter alia, directing companystitution of a companymittee of experts, which the State Government had already undertaken to appoint, to examine ways and means for implementing the uniform education system, companymon syllabus, and the textbooks which were to be provided for Standards II to V and VII to X under the Act 2010.
Accordingly, writ petitions were amended challenging the validity of the Amendment Act 2011.
A Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 30.4.2010 held that the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 14 were unconstitutional and struck down the same while the Court issued elaborate directions for implementation of the companymon syllabus and the textbooks for Standards I and VI by the academic year 2010 11 and for all other Standards by the academic year 2011 12 or until the State makes the numberms and the syllabus and prepares the textbooks in advance for the same.
Hence, these appeals.
The Court further directed the Government to amend the Act to say that the companymon uniform syllabus was restricted to five curricular subjects, namely, English, Tamil, Mathematics, Science and Social Science which the schools were bound to follow, but number in respect of the companycurricular subjects.
It was at that stage that the Bill was introduced in the House on 7.6.2011 and the Amendment Act was passed and enforced with retrospective effect i.e. from 22.5.2011, the date of the decision of the Cabinet in this regard.
The academic session which had to start on 1.6.2011 was postponed extending the summer vacation upto 15.6.2011 vide order dated 25.5.2011.
Each Board had its own syllabus and prescribed different types of textbooks.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition Nos.12882, 12890, 13019, 13037, 13038, 13227, 13293, 13296, 13345, 13381, 13390, 13547 of 2011 and W.P. M.D. No.6143/2011 whereby the High Court has struck down Section 3 of The Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Amendment Act, 2011 hereinafter called the Amendment Act 2011 and issued directions to the State Authorities to implement the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Act, 2010 hereinafter called the Act 2010 , i.e. to implement the companymon syllabus, distribute the textbooks printed under the uniform system of education and companymence the classes on or before 22.7.2011.
In order to remove disparity in standard of education under different Boards, the State Government appointed a Committee for suggesting a uniform system of school education.
Then another Committee was appointed to implement suggestions recommendations made by the said Committee.
