Madrasdated High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 2010For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan For Respondents: For R1 and R2: Mr.S.Prabhakaran Government Advocate For R3: Mr.S.Mukunth Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Antony JesusW.P.No.13677 of 2009K.Ezhil,W/o.P.Manuneethi Cholan... Petitioner Vs.1.The Secretary, School Committee, D.G.M. Higher Secondary School, Sethiyathope, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.2.The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore – 1.3.The District Educational Officer, Cuddalore – 1.... RespondentsPrayer in W.P.No.13677 of 2009: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with the impugned disciplinary proceedings No.A/3-2009 dated 06.07.2009 and quash the same.2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 2010For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan For Respondents: For R1: Mr.S.Mukunth Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Antony JesusFor R2 and R3: Mr.S.Prabhakaran Government AdvocateW.P.No.13891 of 2010K.Ezhil,W/o.P.Manuneethi Cholan... Petitioner Vs.1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.2.The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore – 1.3.The District Educational Officer, Cuddalore – 1.4.The Secretary, D.G.M. Higher Secondary School, Sethiyathope, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.... RespondentsPrayer in W.P.No.13891 of 2010: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, to declare that the 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 2010impugned order of dismissal dated 18.06.2010 passed by the fourth respondent dismissing the petitioner from service vide his proceedings No.A/3-2010 dated 18.06.2010 without getting prior approval from the second respondent as per Section 22(1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973 as null and void and the post approval granted by the 2nd respondent for the dismissal order passed by the fourth respondent as illegal, incompetent and null and void.(Prayer amended vide order dated 09.09.2021 made inW.M.P.No.20626 of 2021 in W.P.No.13891 of 2010)For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan For Respondents: For R1 to R3: Mr.S.Prabhakaran Government Advocate For R4: Mr.S.Mukunth Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Antony Jesus COMMON ORDER By this Common Order, all the Writ Petitions are being disposed of.2. In W.P.No.30337 of 2008, the Petitioner has challenged the Impugned Advertisement dated 22.11.2008 issued by the 3rd Respondent School namely D.G.M. Higher Secondary School, calling for application to the post of B.T. Assistant. 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 20103. The Petitioner claiming that since she was already working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 3rd Respondent School, the application called for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant from open market, was contrary to Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the '1974 Rules') 4. In W.P.No.13677 of 2009, the Petitioner has challenged the Impugned Suspension Order dated 06.07.2009. The reasons for suspending the Petitioner from service are as under:-“jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk; MizvkJ nkyhz;ikapd;fPH; ,a';Fk; rpjk;guk; tl;l nrj;jpahj;njhg;g[ nj/nfh/k/nky;epiyg;gs;spapd; ,ilepiy Mrphpauhd jpUkjp/f/vHpy; vd;gtuhfpa eP';fs; mspj;j 16?4?2009?k; njjpa jd; tptuf; Fwpg;g[ rhh;e;J. ckf;F ghh;it vz; 2. 4?Mfpatw;wpy;fz;l foj';fs; vk;khy; mspf;fg;gl;ld/ mtw;wpw;F ghh;it vz; 3?y; fz;l fojg;go gjpYiuj;Jk;. ghh;it vz; 4?y; fz;lthW tH';fg;gl;l miHg;ghizf;F M$uhfpa[k;. mg;nghJ tH';fg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhw;Wfs;;. tpsf;f';fs; nfhUk; tpdhg;gl;oay; Mfpatw;Wf;Fk; gjpYiuahfnth. vGj;J K:ykhfnth gjpYiuj;J Fw;wkw;wth; vd;gij gs;spf;FGtpd;Kd; bka;g;gpf;f ntz;oa flg;ghl;il kwe;J. Mtzkhf vJt[k; vGjpf;bfhLf;f KoahJ vd;Wiuj;j ckJ braypdhy; Fw;wr;rhw;Wfs; cWjp bra;ag;gl;L. mjdhy; ck;ik nrj;jpahj;njhg;g[ nj/nfh/k/nkdpiyg;gs;spapd; ,ilepiy Mrphpag;gzpapypUe;J tpLtpj;J jw;fhypfg; gzpePf;fk; bra;J. gs;spf;FG jPh;khdg;go gpd;tUkhW Miz tH';fg;gLfpwJ/1)06/07/2009?Kw;gfy; Kjy; nj/nfh/k/nkdpiyg;gs;spapd; 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 2010,ilepiy Mrphpah; gzpapypUe;Jk;. gs;sp rhh;e;j. fy;tpj;Jiw rhh;e;j midj;Jg; bghWg;g[fspypUe;J jw;fhypfkhfg; gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gLfpwPh;/2)nkw;fz;l jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk; vk;khy; kWMiz tH';fg;gLk; tiu eilKiwapy; ,Uf;Fk; vdt[k; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwPh;/3)nkw;fz;l jw;fhypf gzpePf;f Miziaj; bjhlh;e;J. tprhuizf;fhf ck;ik miHj;jhy; jtwhJ M$uhFk;goa[k; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwPh;/4)c';fs; kPJ Twg;bgWk; Fw;wr; rhw;WfSf;F rhpahd gjpYiuj;J Fw;wkw;wth; vd;gij vjph;fhy tprhuizapYk; bka;g;gpf;fj; jtwpdhy; jw;fhypfg; gzpePf;fj;ijj; bjhlh;e;J xG';F eltof;if tpjpfspd;go nky;eltof;if ck;kPJ jPtpug;gLj;jg;gLk; vdt[k; mjw;Fwpa jz;lid tH';fg;gLk; vdt[k; mwptpf;fg;gLfpwPh;/5)jkpH;ehL m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;l jdpahh;g;gs;sp xG';fhw;Wtpjpfs; 1973. 74?d; goa[k;. jkpH;ehL muRg;gzpahsh;. elj;ijtpjpfs; 1973?d; goa[k;. jkpH;ehL muRg;gzpahsh; gzpaikg;g[ tpjpfspd;goa[k; jkpH;ehL FoKiw muRg; gzpfs; (xG';F Kiwa[k; nky; KiwaPLfSk;) tpjpfspd;goa[k; ckf;F ,j;jw;fhypfg; gzpePf;f Miz tH';fg;gLfpwJ vd;gJk; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/6)jw;fhy gzpePf;ffhyk; tiu nrj;jpahj;njhg;g[ kJuh brd;dpej;jk; ckJ epue;ju ,Ug;gplj;jpy; ,Uf;ft[k; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/ ”5. In W.P.No.13891 of 2010, the Petitioner has challenged the Impugned Dismissal Order, dismissing the Petitioner from the services of the 4th Respondent School, vide Dismissal Order dated 18.06.2010 effective from the date of dismissal of the Petitioner on 31.05.2010. 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 20106. The challenge to the aforesaid Order is two fold. One is an ex parte inquiry has been ordered as if the Petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.05.2010 for the 2nd time and that without issuance of any Charge Memo. 7. That apart, it is submitted that dismissal of the Petitioner from the services of the said School was contrary to Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the '1973 Act') and Rule 17 of the 1974 Rules.8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of this Court:-i.Marathwada University Vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan, (1989) 3 SCC 132.ii.Avinash Nagra Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others, (1997) 2 SCC 534.iii.RV Thevar Memorial Girls High School, Cholapuram, Represented by its Secretary Vs. The Director of School Education, College Road, Madras and 4 others, 2002 (4) CTC 129.iv.The Secretary Balakrishnavilas Aided Primary School Vs. The Joint Director of Elementary Education and others in W.P.No.30058 of 2008 dated 04.03.2011.v.R.Santhakumari and others Vs. The Joint Director (Higher Secondary) and others in W.P.Nos.19869 and 23932 of 2012 dated 07.02.2013.7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 2010vi. A.S.Edwin Suthan Vs. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli and others in W.P.(MD) No.1849 of 2009 dated 28.08.2014.vii. A.Andi Vs. The Secretary, Nadar Higher Secondary School, Virudhunagar District and others in W.A.(MD) No.513 of 2008 dated 28.08.2008.viii. The Manager, Hindu Middle School Vs. I.P.Moorthy and others in W.A.No.2059 of 2001 dated 10.06.2010.ix.Tmt.K.Ezhil Vs. The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore and others in W.P.No.24511 of 2008 dated 11.07.2012.9. Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd Respondent / 1st Respondent / 4th Respondent School in the respective Writ Petitions appears and submits that although the procedure prescribed under Section 22 of the 1973 Act and Rule 17 of the 1974 Rules was not followed, there has been a post facto approval to the order of dismissal of the Petitioner by the Chief Educational Officer (CEO) in the proceedings dated 11.03.2011. 10. It is therefore submitted that dismissal of the Petitioner from service was correct and therefore does not warrant any interference.11. As far as the Suspension Order, suspending the Petitioner from service which has been impugned in W.P.No.13677 of 2009 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that as the conduct of the Petitioner was 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 2010unbecoming of a Teacher, therefore, her services could not be retained and therefore she was placed under suspension.12. As far as W.P.No.30337 of 2008 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Advertisement has been issued strictly in accordance with Rule 15(4) of the 1974 Rules and therefore does not warrant any interference.13. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Vs. Sunil, S/o.Pundikarao Pathak”, (2006) 5 SCC 96 and that of the decision of this Court in “P.S.K.Singaravelu Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Secretariat, Chennai and another” in W.P.No.19396 of 2016 dated 02.12.2016.14. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for the Official Respondents and the learned Senior Counsel for the Private Respondent School. I have also considered the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 2010decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd Respondent / 1st Respondent / 4th Respondent School in the respective Writ Petitions.15. In my view, post facto approval to the dismissal of the Petitioner from services in the School vide Order dated 11.03.2011 by the Chief Educational Officer (CEO) cannot be countenanced. The language used in Section 22 of the 1973 Act clearly contemplates a “prior approval” of the competent authority. Therefore, post facto approval/rectification cannot be countenanced. 16. That apart, this is a case where there has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice before dismissing the Petitioner from service.17. The Petitioner was placed under suspension for the 2nd time on 31.05.2010. The Petitioner was however asked to be present for giving her explanation on 16.06.2010. However, on 15.06.2010, the Petitioner requested time. This was at the time when already the Petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.30337 of 2008 and W.P.No.13677 of 2009 for the relief stated therein. 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 201018. Merely because the Petitioner has approached this Court earlier by way of two Writ Petitions cannot be the basis for dismissing the Petitioner from service. In disciplinary matters, an Inquiry Officer has to be appointed and an Inquiry Report has to be generated following the due procedure of law. Without any Inquiry Report, the dismissal of the Petitioner from service cannot be countenanced.19. As far as the Impugned Advertisement challenged in W.P.No.30337 of 2008 is concerned, I am of the view that prima facie, the Impugned Advertisement Notification is contrary to Rule 15(4) of the 1974 Rules.20. Be that as it may, the Dismissal Order dated 18.06.2010, dismissing the Petitioner from service is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 4th Respondent School to redo the exercise.21. The challenge to the aforesaid Impugned Advertisement Notification is left open to the agitated afresh subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 201022. Since the Writ Petitions are of the year 2008, 2009 and 2010, the 3rd Respondent / 1st Respondent / 4th Respondent School in the respective Writ Petitions is directed to appoint a Disciplinary Authority as also an Inquiry Officer to complete the Disciplinary Proceedings strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 1973 Act and the 1974 Rules made thereunder, within a period of 6 months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order.23. The rights of the Petitioner will be subject to the final orders to be passed by the 3rd Respondent / 1st Respondent / 4th Respondent School in the respective Writ Petitions.24. These Writ Petitions stand disposed with the above observations. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 24.03.2025Neutral Citation : Yes / Noarb12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 2010To:1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.2.The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore – 1.3.The District Educational Officer, Cuddalore – 1.13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.30337 of 2008, 13677 of 2009 and 13891 of 2010C.SARAVANAN, J.arbW.P.No.30337 of 2008, W.P.No.13677 of 2009 andW.P.No.13891 of 2010 and M.P.No.2 of 2008 and W.M.P.No.20626 of 202124.03.2025 14/14