Thiruvengadam v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.11.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition No.4445 of 2004V.Thiruvengadam. ... Petitioner vs.1.State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Education Department (Primary), Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.Director of School Education (Primary Education), College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.3.District Elementary Educational Officer, Vellore District, Vellore.4.Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Katpadi, Vellore District.5.Thiru T.V.Sivanandham, Secretary and Correspondent, Kalvi Ulagam, Sivanandam Aided Elementary School, Kilithanpattarai, Katpadi-632 007, Vellore District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.A.Selvanathan, Head Master, Kalvi Ulagam, Sivanandam Aided Elementary School, Kilithanpattarai, Katpadi-632 007, Vellore District. ... RespondentsWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling forrecords leading to the issue of proceedings bearingNa.Ka.No.292/A3/2001 dated 13.3.2001 of the Additional AssistantElementary Education Officer, Katpadi, the 4th respondent and quashthe same and direct the respondents to restore the petitioner to thepost of Head Master of the Kalvi Ulagam, Sivanandam Aided ElementarySchool, Kilithanpattarai, Katpadi-632 007, Vellore District from31.10.2000 with continuity of service and payment of arrears ofsalary and all other attendant benefits.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sridhar For Respondents : Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4 : No appearance for R5 -----O R D E RThis Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, calling for records in respect of the proceedingsbearing Na.Ka.No.292/A3/2001 dated 13.3.2001 of the AdditionalAssistant Elementary Education Officer, Katpadi, the 4th respondentand quash the same and direct the respondents to restore thepetitioner to the post of Head Master of the Kalvi Ulagam,Sivanandam Aided Elementary School, Kilithanpattarai, Katpadi-632007, Vellore District from 31.10.2000 with continuity of service andpayment of arrears of salary and all other attendant benefits. 2. Petitioner joined the services of the fifth respondentschool as Higher Grade Teacher on 3.1.1979. On 1.9.1979, petitionerwas upgraded as Secondary Grade Teacher and thereafter, he wasappointed as Head Master on 1.7.1983. According to the petitioner,there was a change in management. Certain dispute arose between thepetitioner and the new management with regard to utilization offunds. According to the petitioner, he was taken to the residenceof the 5th respondent, where petitioner was forced to give a letter https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of resignation dated 19.5.1999. The petitioner states that the saidletter of resignation is addressed to the Manager of the fifthrespondent School. He also states that no action was taken on thebasis of the letter of resignation for several months. InNovember, 2000, the petitioner came to know that in the place of thepetitioner some other person is likely to be promoted as Head Masterand therefore, petitioner made a representation on 8.11.2000 statingthe reason as to why a handwritten resignation letter was given on19.5.1999 with a request not to act upon the resignation letter andto allow the petitioner to continue as Head Master. Consequent tothe resignation letter dated 19.5.1999, the fifth respondent schoolwrote a letter to the Additional Assistant Elementary EducationOfficer, Katpadi, the fourth respondent seeking approval of theresignation of the petitioner from the post of Head Master witheffect from 31.10.2000 and to continue him as Secondary GradeTeacher from 1.11.2000. A copy of this proceedings was notcommunicated to the petitioner. By letter dated 19.12.2000, the 5threspondent appointed the sixth respondent as Head Master withretrospective effect from 1.11.2000. The sixth respondent'sservice register was sent to the 4th respondent for his approval andendorsement in the service register. In order dated 13.3.2001 inNa.Ka.No.292/A3/2001, the appointment of Mr.Selvanathan, the sixthrespondent, as Head Master with effect from 1.11.2000 was approvedby the fourth respondent based on the reversion of the petitionerfrom the post of Headmaster. The writ petition is filed challengingthe said order dated 13.3.2001 as contrary to the provisions of theTamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, inparticular, Thiru Sridhar, counsel appearing for the petitionerstated that the impugned order is violative of Rule 17-A which readsas follows:-"17-A. Educational agencies not to obtaincompulsorily resignation letter either at thetime of appointment or subsequent from theemployees in their school:- (1) Whenever a teacher or other personemployed in a private school, tenders hisresignation of appointment he shall inform thefact of his resignation in writing by registeredpost with acknowledgment due to the DistrictEducational Officer, Inspectress of Girls'School or the Deputy Inspector of Schoolsconcerned.(2) x x x(3) x x x(4) No teacher or other person employed ina private school shall be relieved from serviceon the strength of resignation letter. Theresignation letter shall, on receipt, be sent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the Chief Educational Officer concerned inrespect of teacher and other persons employed inHigh Schools, Higher Secondary Schools andTeachers' Training Institutes and to theDistrict Educational Officer concerned inrespect of teacher and other person employed ina Pre-primary, Primary and Middle Schools. TheChief Educational Officer or DistrictEducational Officer concerned shall in turn getthe confirmation of the teacher or other personemployed, as the case may be, as to the fact ofsuch resignation and then accord his approval torelieve the teacher or other person employed, asthe case may be, from service.(5) Entries regarding the date ofacceptance of resignation of appointment shallbe made by the Secretary of the SchoolCommittee, in the Teachers Service Registers ofthe teacher or in the Service Registers of theother persons employed in a private school underproper attestation and duly countersigned by theDistrict Educational Officer or the Inspectressof Girls' Schools as the case may be.(6) No substitute shall be appointed in theplace of a teacher or other person employed in aprivate school who has been relieved on thebasis of the resignation letter tendered by him,without obtaining prior approval of the ChiefEducational Officer concerned in respect of theteacher and other person employed in HighSchools, Higher Secondary Schools and Teachers'Training Institutions and the DistrictEducational Officers concerned in respect ofteachers and other persons employed in Pre-primary, Primary and Middle Schools."3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that theRule 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation)Rules, 1974 (herein after referred to as "the Rules" has beenviolated in pith and substance and the procedure prescribed has notbeen followed and therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside.4. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondentstating that the petitioner resigned voluntarily and therefore, theyappointed a new Head Master. As far as the violation of Rule 17-Aof the Rule is concerned, it is stated that the fourth respondenthas got the power to approve the appointment of another person onresignation by the Headmaster. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The provision of Rule 17-A belies the statement of thefourth respondent. Clause (1) of Rule 17-A of the Rules providesthat whenever a teacher in a private school, tenders hisresignation of appointment he shall inform the fact in writing byregistered post with acknowledgment due to the District EducationalOfficer, Inspectress of Girl's School or the Deputy Inspector ofSchools concerned. Insofar as the present case is concerned, theDistrict Elementary Educational Officer, the third respondent aloneis competent authority and not the Additional Assistant EducationalOfficer, the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent who is not acompetent authority in terms of Rule 17-A(1) of the Rules cannotgrant approval and it will be contrary to the Rule. Further, theresignation letter is addressed to the Manager of the fifthrespondent school which is also contrary to Rule 17-A(1). 6. The so-called resignation letter of the petitioner dated19.5.1999 has not been forwarded to the District Educational Officerwho is the competent authority having control over the fifthrespondent school and in turn the said authority did not get theconfirmation from the teacher/petitioner with regard to the letterof resignation. Without complying with the requirement of Clause(4) of Rule 17-A, the competent authority cannot approve theresignation.7. Clause 6 of Rule 17-A provides that no substitute shall beappointed in the place of a teacher or others in the private schoolwho have been relieved on the basis of the resignation letterwithout prior approval of the competent authority. In this case,while appointing the sixth respondent as Head Master in the place ofthe petitioner, the condition stipulated in clause (6) of Rule 17-Ahas not been complied with. 8. For all the above said reasons, the impugned order isliable to be interfered with and is accordingly set aside withconsequential benefits as applicable. 9. In the instant case, the fifth respondent school managementhas acted contrary to the Rule 17-A of the Rules for which thefourth respondent has granted his approval. The action of the fourthrespondent is contrary to Rule 17-A and is without jurisdiction.The various infirmities which have been highlighted by this Court,shows that the impugned proceedings have been passed withoutobserving the various safeguards and procedural requirement setout in Rule 17-A. The mistake has been pointed out by thepetitioner in his representation dated 8.11.2000 addressed to theDirector of School Education (Primary Education), the secondrespondent herein and the District Elementary Educational Officer,the third respondent herein. After the impugned order was passed,the petitioner sent another representation dated 5.1.2001 to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents 2 to 4 pointing out the infirmities. However, no actionhas been taken by the Authorities to correct the error in theimpugned order passed by the fourth respondent, who has grantedapproval to the appointment of the sixth respondent as Head Mastercontrary to the Rule 17-A. If remedial action has been taken at theappropriate time, the petitioner need not have rushed to this Court.The Department Authorities failed to take action against theOfficer concerned, who granted the approval contrary to the saidrule, thereby the agony of the petitioner could have been avoided.The Director of School Education (Primary Education), the secondrespondent herein is directed to issue suitable direction to theconcerned Authorities to ensure strict compliance of the Rule andinform them that the breach, if any, will be viewed seriously. Thiswill ensure that the standard of the education is not compromised bythe arbitrary action on the part of one or other Officer, who usurpsthe power which is not vested in him under the Act or under theRules. 10. The Writ Petition is ordered as above. No costs.tsSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo 1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department (Primary), Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Director of School Education (Primary Education), College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Vellore District, Vellore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Katpadi, Vellore District.+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Sridhar, Advocate SR no.64496+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.64343JP(CO)SR/14.12.2009 Order inW.P.No.4445 of 2004