The Secretary,Balakrishnavilas Aided Primary School,No.1, Dharmalingam Street,Line Medu, Salem -636 001 v. The State of Tamilnadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 09-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.5916 of 2009 andM.P.No.1 of 2009The Secretary,Balakrishnavilas Aided Primary School,No.1, Dharmalingam Street,Line Medu, Salem -636 001... Petitioner.Versus1.The State of TamilnaduRep. by its Secretary,Department of School Education,Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Director of Elementary EducationCollege Road, Chennai-600 006.3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,District Library Building,Salem-636 007.4.Tmt.K.Mangalam,The District Elementary Educational Officer,District Library Building,Salem-636 007.5.The Additional Assistant ElementaryEducational Officer, Salem Nagurpuram,Salem-636 006... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari to call forthe records relating to impugned proceedings issued by the thirdrespondent District Elementary Educational Officer, videNa.Ka.No.845/AA1/2006, dated 13.12.2008, ordering direct payment ofsalary to staff of the petitioner School, and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac MohanlalFor Respondents : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy Government Advocate (R1 to R3 & R5) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and thefifth respondent. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner School has beenestablished in the year, 1953. It is a recognised Private schooloffering education from standards I to V. The petitioner School isreceiving aid from the State Government. The school has oneHeadmaster and 18 Secondary Grade teachers. It has a total strengthof 810 students. The medium of instruction in the school is Tamil.3. It has been further stated that the petitioner School hadtaken disciplinary action against Ms.V.Jayanthi, a secondary gradeteacher, on certain charges levelled against her. The schoolcommittee, after conducting a detailed enquiry, had resolved todismiss her from service. The then District Elementary EducationalOfficer had also given his approval, by his proceedings, dated31.7.2006. However, on the appeal filed by the said teacher, theJoint Director of Elementary Education had set aside the order ofdismissal, vide his proceedings, dated 13.5.2008. Since the saidorder had been passed without hearing the school management a writpetition had been filed before this Court, in W.P.No.13219 of 2008.By an order, dated 7.7.2008, this Court had upheld the order of theJoint Director. However, it had left the matter open to themanagement of the school to proceed further, in accordance with law.Accordingly, the petitioner Management had submitted fresh proposals,dated 14.8.2008, to the District Elementary Educational Officer, forhis prior approval, to dismiss the teacher from service. However, theDistrict Elementary Educational Officer had not passed any orders onthe said proposal. Therefore, the petitioner Management had preferreda writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.30058 of 2008, prayingfor a Writ of Mandamus to direct the District Elementary EducationalOfficer to pass orders on the proposal made by the petitionerManagement. 3. While so, the District Elementary Educational Officer haspressurised the petitioner Management to drop the proceedingsinitiated against the teacher, Ms.V.Jayanthi. Since the petitionerManagement had not yielded to the pressure exerted by the DistrictElementary Educational Officer, he had issued the impugned order,dated 13.12.2008, ordering direct payment of the salary to the staffof the school. The said order had been issued by the DistrictElementary Educational Officer, without having the power orjurisdiction to do so. The said order has been issued in exercise ofthe powers prescribed, under Section 18-A(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and A inChapter IV-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools(Regulation) Act, 1973, relating to appointment of Special Officers https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to manage the institutions, under certain circumstances. In suchcircumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petitionbefore this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioneris that the third respondent had issued the impugned proceedings,dated 13.12.2008, without having the jurisdiction to do so. No noticehad been issued to the petitioner Management before the said orderhad been issued. No opportunity of hearing had been provided to thepetitioner management before the impugned order, dated 13.12.2008,had been passed by the third respondent. Since the impugned order,dated 13.12.2008, had been issued by the third respondent, withoutjurisdiction and without following the principles of natural justice,it is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents had submitted that there is no need to issue a priornotice to the petitioner Management, before an order is passed, forpayment of salaries, by direct payment. If such direct payment isfound to be necessary, in the interest of the institution or inpublic interest, no damage or harm or prejudice is done to thepetitioner Management by the impugned order of the third respondent,dated 13.12.2008. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioner cannotbe sustained in the eye of law.6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied ona decision of this Court, reported in Papanasam Labour WelfareAssociation HS School V. Chief Educational Officer (1998 (III) CTC753), wherein, it had been held that when direct salaries are paid tothe teachers, there is a serious encroachment on the principles ofthe management of the educational institution. Since it has certaincivil consequences, principles of natural justice would have to befollowed in such cases. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels forthe petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of thedecision cited above, it is found that the third respondent hadissued the impugned order, dated 13.12.2008, making direct paymentsto the staff and the employees of the petitioner school, withoutgiving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner management. Theimpugned order, dated 13.12.2008, has been passed by the thirdrespondent, without showing sufficient cause or reasons for thepassing of the said order. Unless, it is shown that specialcircumstances had existed for denying the petitioner Management theprivilege of making direct payments to its staff and its employees,it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Principles of naturaljustice ought to have been followed, by the third respondent, beforepassing the impugned order, dated 13.12.2008. Further, it has notbeen shown that the impugned order, dated 13.12.2008, had been passedby the third respondent, in the interest of institution or in public https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interest. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the thirdrespondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is setaside. However, it is open to the third respondent to passappropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner Management. The writpetition is allowed to the extent noted above. No costs.Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1. The Secretary,State of TamilnaduDepartment of School Education,Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Director of Elementary EducationCollege Road, Chennai-600 006.3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,District Library Building,Salem-636 007.4.The Additional Assistant ElementaryEducational Officer, Salem Nagurpuram,Salem-636 006.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.30030Writ Petition No.5916 of 2009SP(CO)SRA(10/08/2009)