Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.11.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NOs.15954, 12597, 13368, 13839 and 13840 of 2009 22691 to 22695 of 2008, 14583, 13908 to 13911 and 16769 of 2009 and 20729 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1,2,2,2 and 2 of 2009 2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,3,4,4,5,5,4,6,6,7 and 7 of 2008,2,2,2,2,2,2,3 of 2009 and 2,3 and 4 of 2008 W.P.NO.15954 OF2009 The Tamilnadu Physical Education Teachers Directors Association, Chennai (Reg.No.69/2008).represented by its South Chennai Secretary, No.11,Sivaraman Street, Triplicane, Chennai-600 005.Petitioner versus 1.M/s.Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).represented by its Assistant Secretary, Regional Office, Chennai New No.3 (Old No.1630-A) J-Block, Anna Nagar (W).16th Main Road, Chennai-600 040.
2.M/s.Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).represented by its Chairman, Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer, CBSE HeadquarteRs.No.2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110 092.
3.M/s.Department of School Education, represented by its Director, DPI Buildings, Chennai-6.Respondent W.P.NO.12597,13368,13839 and 13840 OF200922691 to 22695 of 2008, 14583, 13908 to 13911 and 16769 of 2009 and 20729 of 2008: K.V.Vijai Pranav represented by Natural Guardian and father Mr.M.Vaidyanathan No.1, Vaidyarama Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.Petitioner in W.P.No.12597 of 2009 Minor B.Abinash rep.
By natural Guardian and mother B.Latha Baskar, No.27, Kamaraj Avenue, II Street,Adyar, Chennai-600 020.Petitioner in W.P.No.13368 of 2009 Sreenesh S.Pai represented by natural guardian and father R.Srinivasan Pai Old No.6, New No.13, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.Petitioner in W.P.No.13839 of 2009 S.R.Yamini, rep.
By natural guardian and father S.Raghunathan, Old No.13, New No.46, Padavattamman Koil 1st Street, West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033 .Petitioner in W.P.No.13840 of 2009 P.D.Subhadhra rep.
by natural guardian and father Mr.P.Dhandapani No.35,SBM Colony, Opp.TVS Nagar, Hosur-635 110,Krishnagiri Dist.Petitioner in W.P.No.22691 of 2008 S.Somesh, minor rep.
By his natural guardian and father Mr.M.Sundrasean No.2/733, NGGO Colony, Bagalur Road,Hosur-635 109 Krishnagiri District.Petitioner in W.P.No.22692 of 2008 D.Sameera Kumar, minor rep.
By natural guardian and father Mr.D.Vedamurthy, No.280-C, Type-II, Block-VI, Neyveli-3, Cuddalore District .Petitioner in W.P.No.22693 of 2008 R.Ganapathi Subramanian, minor rep.
By his natural guardian and father Mr.S.Ramakrishnan, No.H-31, TNHB, Phase-VI, Avalpalli Road, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.Petitioner in W.P.No.22694 of 2008 S.Keerthipriya, minor rep.
By natural guardian and father Mr.T.Srinivasan, Plot No.17-B, Nehru Nagar, Hosur,Krishnagiri District .Petitioner in W.P.No.22695 of 2008 1.S.Darshini, minor rep.
By her natural guardian and father P.Suresh, 3/95,6th Street,Sathya Nagar, Manapakkam, Ramapuram,Chennai-600 089.
2.Sukanya Sankaran, minor, rep.
By her natural guardian and father S.Sankaran 987/5,Dr.Lakshmana Swamy Salai, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078.
3.A.R.Madhumitha, minor rep.
By her natural guardian and father M.A.Ravi, 4,Thropathy Amman Koil 5th Street, Velachery, Chennai-600 042.Petitioners in W.P.Nos.14583 of 2009 Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, Principal, Mathagonda Palli Model School, Mathagonda Palli Post, Krishnagiri District.Petitioner in W.P.No.13908 of 2009 Mrs.Shyla, Principal, Maharishi Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary school, SIPCOT, Hosur Post, Krishnagiri District.Petitioner in W.P.No.13909 of 2009 Uma Srinivasan, Principal, The Ashok Leyland School, E1, SIPCo.Industrial Complex, Phase-II, Dharmapuri, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.Petitioner in W.P.No.13910 of 2009 Mrs.Theresammal, Principal, Asaian Christian High school, Bargur Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.Petitioner in W.P.No.13911 of 2009 1.K.Prannoy, minor rep.
By its natural guardian and father Mr.P.Kathiresan 2.S.Abinash, minor rep.
By his natural guardian and father Mr.K.Sivasubramaniam 3.A.Sabari Girishan, minor rep.
By his natural guardian and father Mr.V.R.Anandhan 4.C.Ajay Srinivas, minor rep.
By his natural guardian and father Mr.P.Charles 5.I.B.Akshay, minor rep.
By his natural guardian and father Mr.I.Balasundaram 6.R.Arun Prasath, minor rep.
By his natural guardian and father Mr.K.Ravichandran 7.A.Aarthi Priyanka, minor rep.
By her natural guardian and father Mr.V.R.Ananthan 8.J.S.Rajeshkanna, minor rep.
By his natural guardian and father Mr.J.Sivamani 9.R.Ramya, minor rep.
By her natural guardian and father Mr.K.Ravi.Petitioners in W.P.No.16769 of 2009 1.S.Sethupathi, minor rep.
By his natural guardian and father Mr.P.Settu 2.S.Rohith, minor rep.
By his natural guardian and father Mr.S.Somiah 3.M.Naveen, minor rep.
By his natural guardian and father Mr.G.Manivannan 4.S.Ezhilarasi, minor rep.
By her natural guardian and father Mr.P.Sothi .Petitioners in W.P.No.20729 of 2008 versus 1.State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Fort St.
George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, Tamilnadu, Chennai-600 006.
3.The School Games Federation of India, represented by its President, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 009.Respondents 1 to 3 in all these petitions 4.Joseph Joy rep.
By his natural guardian Mr.Joykurian (R4 impleaded as per order dt.14.11.08 in M.P.No.4/2008) .Respondent No.4 in W.P.Nos.22693 and 22694 of 2008 W.P.No.15954 of 2009 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to allow and permit the students belonging to schools that are affiliated to the third respondent to participate in sports events and athletic meets.
W.P.Nos.12597,13368,13839,13840 of 2009 and 22691 to 22695 of 2008, 13908 to 13911 and 16769 of 2009 and 20729 of 2008 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.62532/M3/2008 dated 23.07.2008 and to quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to participate in all the school level sports meets and competition held by respondents 1 and 2 in the State of Tamil Nadu including the SGFI competitions and to consider them on par with the State Board students on the basis of certificates issued in such common sports meets/Competition up to the National level for determining selection to professional and educational courses under sports quota.
W.P.No.14583 of 2009 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in its order No.Na.Ka.No.62532/M3/2008, dated 23.7.2008 and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Narayanaswamy in W.P.No.15954 of 2009 Mr.Prakash Goklaney in W.P.No.12597,13839 and 13840 of 2009 Mr.R.G.Narendhiran in w.P.No.13368 of 2009 Mr.R.Srinivas in W.P.Nos.22691 to 22695 of 2008, 16769/2009 and 20729 of 2008 Mr.N.L.Rajah in W.P.No.14583 of 2009 Mr.M.Venkadeshan in w.P.Nos.13908 to 13911 of 2009 For Respondents : Mr.G.Nagarajan for RR1 and 2 in W.P.No.15954 of 2009 Mr.A.C.Mani Bharathi, GA for R3 in W.P.No.15954 of 2009 Mr.R.Neelakantan, GA for RR1 and 2 in all other petitions Mr.M.Narayanaswamy for R3 in all other petitions Mr.K.Venkatasubramanian for R4 in w.P.Nos.22693 and 22694/2008 - - - - COMMON ORDER
These batch of writ petitions raise an interesting as well as an important question.
One set of writ petitions was filed by the students studying in various schools affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education (for short CBSE).challenging the order, dated 23.7.2008 passed by the second respondent, the Director of School Education, Chennai.
2.By the said order, all the Chief Educational Officers in various Revenue Districts in Tamil Nadu and the Chief Physical Education Inspector (Girls).Chennai and the Chief Physical Education Inspector (Boys).Chennai were informed that in the admission for various professional courses, certificates obtained in the tournaments conducted by CBSE were not granted marks upto the academic year 2007-08 under the sports quota.
Therefore, the sports persons from those schools were permitted to participate in the sports conducted by the Tamil Nadu School Education Department from Zonal to National level, i.e.BDG, RDG, RDS and National as well as team games and individual games.
3.It was further noted that from the year 2008-2009, certificates obtained by the sports persons from the tournaments conducted by CBSE Schools were also granted separate marks while considering their names under the eminent sportsmen category.
Therefore, it was resolved from the year 2008-2009 onwards in the various tournaments conducted by the Tamil Nadu School Education Department, students from the schools affiliated to CBSE will not be permitted and permission granted to them hitherto will stand revoked.
Therefore, all those officials were informed that they should suitably advise their subordinates and must take an appropriate action.
The minor children represented by their parents have filed the following writ petitions i.e.W.P.Nos.12597, 13368, 13839 and 13840 of 2009, 22691 to 22695 of 2008, 14583 and 16769 of 2009 and 20729 of 2008.
4.Pending the writ petitions, the writ petitioners sought for an interim direction to permit them to participate in all the sports events and competitions held by the Director of School Education in the State of Tamil Nadu.
In most of the cases, this Court granted either stay of the impugned order or an interim direction to participate in those tournaments pending those writ petitions.
On the strength of such interim ordeRs.the petitioner students have participated in the games including Zonal and Regional level.
Some of the petitioners were also selected to the national level games.
Wherever students did not come to challenge the impugned order personally, the management of those CBSE Schools represented by its Principals have also filed writ petitions for the very same relief being W.P.Nos.13908 to 13911 of 2009.
In those cases, the writ petitions were admitted and interim stay was also granted by this Court.
5.In some of the writ petitions, some individual students have filed impleading petition to oppose the grant of the interim order.
The fiRs.and second respondents have also filed applications for vacating the interim order.
It was the grievance of privately impleaded respondents that while the petitioners studying in the CBSE Schools belonged to an affluent class and they have chances to participate in various sports events and competitions conducted by the CBSE Board from Zonal to National Level in all the team games and individual events, whereas the students studying in the Schools affiliated to State Board were denied such opportunities.
The students studying under the CBSE are a class apart and and denying them participation in the games conducted by the State Board is not discriminatory.
By the strength of the interim order, the petitioners students had scored double benefits.
6.The vacate stay petitions filed by the respondent State were supported by counter affidavits filed by the then Director of School Education.
It was stated by him that till the academic year 2007-2008, the athletics and sports persons studying in various schools affiliated to CBSE and the State of Tamil Nadu were allowed to participate in team games and individual events in the competitions held by the respondents.
Till that year, in the admissions to professional courses, the certificates issued by the CBSE authorities were not taken into consideration under the sports quota.
But, from the year 2008-2009, the certificates issued by the CBSE were taken into consideration under the sports quota.
It was further stated that since CBSE Board itself conducts competitions and sports meets from Zonal to National level in all team games and individual events, their students can participate in those events, whereas the students, who were sports persons affiliated to various State Board Schools, are not permitted to participated in the events conducted by the CBSE.
The CBSE schools are not under the control of State School Education Board.
By allowing CBSE students to participate in the State sports events, the students under the State Board are very much affected.
Since CBSE students have the advantage of getting sports certificates granted by CBSE which will also be considered for admission to the professional courses, the earlier permission given by the School Education Department was cancelled.
7.It was also stated that the impugned order, dated 23.7.2008 was neither illegal nor unconstitutional.
The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for short Kversus which follows the CBSE syllabus, also conducts similar sports events and they are affiliated to the School Games Federation of India (for short SGFI).The KVS schools also do not permit the State Board students to participate in the sports and games conducted by them.
If CBSE students are permitted to participate in the games conducted by the Tamil Nadu School Education Department, then the students from Kversus Navodaya Vidyalaya institutions and other outside State Board syllabus schools will also aspire to participate in those games and that will adversely affect the State Board students.
The CBSE students, by seeking orders to participate in the State Board games, will get two opportunities, whereas the students of Tamil Nadu State Board will get only one opportunity.
8.It was also stated that the CBSE school students are also entitled to participated in various sport meets conducted by the All India Football Federation (AIFF).All India Basket Ball Federations (AIBBF).All India Shuttle Badminton Federation (AISBF) and All India Hockey Federations (AIHF).through that they can represent the State and will have the benefit of reservation under the sports quota with equal marks of SGFI National competitions.
Therefore, it is not the only mode by which CBSE students can get marks allotted under the sports quota.
It was further stated that the merit certificates of different sports competitions were decided by the Anna University, which conducts professional entrance examinations.
If the CBSE schools feel that the marks allotted for CBSE events are less than the marks awarded to other tournaments, they should take up the matter with the Anna University and not challenge the impugned order.
9.When these matters were pending for consideration, W.P.No.15954 of 2009 came to be filed.
The said writ petition was filed by the Tamil Nadu Physical Education Teachers Directors Association, Chennai.
The said association claims to be a registered body with Registration No.69/08.
In the said writ petition, they made the CBSE as party fiRs.and second respondents and the Director of School Education as the third respondent.
The prayer of the petitioner Association in that writ petition was for a direction to the CBSE to permit the students belonging to the schools that are affiliated to the State Board of School Education to participate in the sports events and athletic meets conducted by the CBSE.
10.The said association stated that if the students belonging to the CBSE are permitted to participate in the school games and several competitions, then the students belonging to the State Board also must be allowed reciprocally to participate in the competitions held by the CBSE.
If the prayer of the other petitioneRs.i.e.CBSE students, is allowed, it will give undue advantage to them and they will have two opportunities.
It was stated by them that the attempt by the CBSE not to permit any of the students undergoing school education in various schools affiliated to the State Board is arbitrary and there is no reasonable cause for excluding them.
11.However, in his affidavit, the South Chennai Secretary of the Association had not explained as to how the Physical Directors are interested in making such claims in the absence of either respective schools or students represented by their parents or by the State Government making such claiMs.They have also enclosed a copy of the details received from the CBSE under the Right to Information Act to state that in the competitions conducted by the CBSE, i.e.Inter school sports and games at Cluster level, Zonal level and National level, only the CBSE affiliated independent schools can participate.
Therefore, they wanted reciprocal gesture for the State Board students to participate in the events conducted by the CBSE.
12.When the matter came up on 24.10.2009, this Court was informed about the pendency of other cases filed by the CBSE students.
Therefore, a direction was given to list those matteRs.so that a comprehensive order can be passed.
Arguments of counsels representing various petitioners and the learned Government Advocates representing State were heard.
13.A perusal of various affidavits filed by the CBSE schools and the students studying under it will show that their desire to seek to participate in the tournaments conducted by the Director of School Education is mainly to have certificate obtained from those tournaments, which may enable them to be considered under the sports quota prescribed for the Tamil Nadu professional courses.
Therefore, this court was also granting directions whenever any petition is filed and most of the students had the benefit of interim ordeRs.which also enable them to go from the cluster level to various levels, including national level.
In view of the interim orders obtained by those petitioneRs.most of the writ petitions have also practically become infructuous.
However, the Principals of Schools affiliated to CBSE, who are petitioners in some writ petitions, have urged that the cases should be disposed of on merits, so that similar issues will not keep coming and their students will be assured of fair treatment in the matter of sports.
14.Before proceeding with the contentions raised, it must be noted that certain provisions of the Constitution will have to be kept in mind.
In this context, it is necessary to refer to Articles 21A, 38, 39F, 51A(j) and (k) of the Constitution of India, which is as follows: "21A.Right to education.-The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.
38.State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people- [(1)].The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.
(2)The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavor to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
39.Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.- ....(f)that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.
51A.Fundamental duties.- It shall be the duty of every citizen of India - .....(j)to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.
(k)who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years."
15.In formulating the FiRs.National Policy on Education, a resolution was issued by the Government of India based on the Report of the Education Commission.
Paragraph 15 emphasised the importance of games and sports, which are as follows: "(15)Games and Sports.
Games and sports should be developed on a large scale with the object of improving the physical fitness and sportsmanship of average student as well as of those who excel in this department.
Where playing field and other facilities for developing a nation-wide programme of physical education do not exist, these should be provided on a priority basis."
(Emphasis added) 16.The fiRs.Commission which was headed by Professor D.S.Kothari, (the then Chairman of the University Grants Commission, New Delhi).gave its report on 29.6.1966.
The Commission in paragraphs 8.88 to 8.93 dealt with the Physical Education.
Paragraph 8.91 reads as follows: "8.91.As the child grows into the preadolescent stage, his interests and capacity change and physical education should provide for more challenging activities, opportunities for simple team play and finer forms of skills.
The adolescent in the secondary school desires to imitate the activities of the adults, and he should be given sports, games and athletics in their standard form.
Skills learnt earlier should be perfected through guidance and practice.
It is an age when boys and girls desire excellence and the physical education syllabus must include techniques for good performance."
17.If it is seen in the context of these constitutional guarantees and recommendations of experts on the field, physical education for children cannot be minimised.
It was preciously for this reason, the authorities empowered to grant recognition to schools insisted on providing play grounds as an essential condition for the grant of affiliation or recognition.
Even in places where no such facilities are available in any school, an agreement in which the said facilities are made available to the children was sought for by the department.
The increasing interest shown by the school children over national sports events will show the growing enthusiasm and attraction over such sports.
May be it is for this reason even in the admission for professional courses started giving sports quota for eminent sportsmen so that the sports activities will grow into higher level.
18.If it is seen in such backdrop, then categorization of children belonging to different school Boards will become meaningless.
So far as the Constitution is concerned, it does not recognize any distinction between different streams of school education.
All the children from the age group of 4 to 14 have been treated as a single class.
Whatever may be the circumstances existed, the State Board had permitted the children belonging to CBSE school to participate in their events till 2007-2008.
The reason for dispensing with the said participation had not been sufficiently explained.
Some untenable reasons projected by the State if allowed will go beyond the constitutional mandate.
19.The contention made by the State that the CBSE students will have double benefit cannot stand to reason because the purpose for which eminent sports quota has been created is only to develop sports.
The object is to encourage sports and only eminent persons are selected under such quota.
It is immaterial whether the students belonged to CBSE or State Board or any other pattern of education so long as they are within the age groups prescribed to participate in those sports.
20.The arguments made by some of the impleaded respondents that the students studying under the CBSE pattern belonged to affluent families and they will have edge over State Board students cannot be accepted.
FiRs.of all, such assertion is not backed by any statistics.
On the other hand, one can take notice of the fact that many of eminent sportsmen of this country have hardly finished their school education either due to poverty or due to increased commitment in sports.
21.One of the arguments addressed by the petitioners was that the second respondent has no authority to frame a policy and the State Government had not evolved any policy to discriminate the CBSE students.
This contention is well founded because in the impugned order, the second respondent had merely stated that the earlier permission was revoked.
He had not referred as to who had granted the earlier permission and the authority who had evolved the present policy.
The counter affidavit filed by him does not disclose the level at which the policy was made.
Admittedly, the policy which has wider ramification and crystallized by the impugned order, must be taken only by the State Government.
May be the second respondent can give his inputs for evolving the same.
22.The other argument that the students from the State Board school are not allowed to participate in the events conducted by the CBSE or SGFI cannot be a ground to reject the claims made by the students affiliated to CBSE.
There cannot be a turf war on this issue.
Even if such an argument is taken at its face value, the number of children studying under the State Board Schools are far outweigh the total number of students studying in the CBSE Schools, which are largely concentrated in urban areas in Tamil Nadu.
23.Mr.N.L.Rajah, the learned counsel for some petitioners stated that a dispute relating to the admission to professional courses on the basis of marks obtained by the CBSE students and the State Board students came up for consideration by this court during the year 1992.
In that batch of cases, the State Government's order in G.O.Ms.No.555, Education Department, dated 15.6.1992 came to be attacked.
The matter was dealt with by a Division Bench of this court in Association of Private Schools affiliated to the CBSE versus The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 1992 Writ L.R.477.
The Division Bench in order to standardize the claims by rival streams held that the subject marks obtained by both streams may not be a safe standard.
The State Government was directed to proceed and admit students into professional couRs.strictly on the basis of the entrance exam marks and not to take into account the subject marks obtained by students from different Board of Education.
After making that direction, it has held that it will apply only for the admission for that year.
But in paragraph 62, the court directed to evolve a long term solution by recommending the constitution of a committee, which will have a nominee of the Union of India, Government of Tamil Nadu and eminent educationists to make recommendation for a system and procedure for admission to professional couRs.in future.
24.Even in the present case, it is essential for the Tamil Nadu State Government to make such an attempt to have broad based consultation with all the stakeholder.
If necessary, they must form a committee to consider the controversies raised in these writ petitions and arrive at a proper solution, which will be crystallized in the form of a policy of the State Government in consonance with the constitutional mandate, considering the future interest of school going children in Tamil Nadu.
Till such time such policy is spelt out and adopted, no CBSE students shall be prevented in participating in various sports events conducted under the Tamil Nadu School Education Department.
25.With reference to the writ petition filed by the Association of Physical Education Teachers and Directors (W.P.No.15954 of 2009).the same will have to be rejected on the ground that the said association has no locus-standi to file the present writ petition.
In any event, the demand for participation of the State Board students in the CBSE sports/tournaments did not come up from any parents or students or from any State Board schools.
As and when the State Government frames a policy after consulting all the stakeholders by forming a committee comprising representatives of Center and State, this issue can also be resolved.
26.This Court, in the light of the above, is not suggesting the composition of committee for making such consultation.
It is entirely for the State Government to frame guidelines by forming an appropriate committee.
Suffice to state that the committee should also take into account the representations of various stakeholders on this issue.
27.Accordingly, W.P.No.15954 of 2009 will stand dismissed.
All other writ petitions, i.e.W.P.NOs.12597,13368,13839 and 13840 OF2009 22691 to 22695 of 2008, 14583, 13908 to 13911 and 16769 of 2009 and 20729 of 2008 shall stand disposed of with the above directions.
No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions shall stand dismissed.
vvk To 1.The Assistant Secretary, M/s.Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).Regional Office, Chennai New No.3 (Old No.1630-A) J-Block, Anna Nagar (W).16th Main Road, Chennai-600 040.
2.The Chairman, Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer, M/s.Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).CBSE HeadquarteRs.No.2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110 092.
3.M/s.Department of School Education, represented by its Director, DPI Buildings, Chennai-6.
4.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Fort St.
George, Chennai-600 009.
5.The Director of School Education, Tamilnadu, Chennai-600 006.
6.The School Games Federation of India, represented by its President, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 110 009