Sri.T.Sanjeeva Rao v. Director of School Education, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20-01-2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENW.P.No.13045 of 2006Sri.T.Sanjeeva Rao.. Petitioner.Versus1.Director of School Education,Directorate of School Education,College Road, Chennai-6.2.Madras Christian College Higher SecondarySchoo, rep. by its Headmaster,46, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai-1... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for therecords of the second respondent in respect of the order, dated23.9.2005, issued by the second respondent and direct the firstrespondent to issue proper directions to the second respondent forconstitution of a proper school committee under Rule 12 of the TamilNadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (Act 29 of1974).For Petitioner: Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali Government Advocate Mr.Sanjay Mohan for M/s.Ramasubramaniam Associates O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the order, dated23.9.2005, issued by the second respondent and to direct the firstrespondent to issue proper directions to the second respondent forconstitution of a proper school committee, under Rule 12 of theTamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The petitioner has stated that he has been working, as aSenior Teacher in the second respondent school, from 20.6.1983. Hehas been incharge of the Department of Telugu language. As such, hehas been imparting education to the students of the higher secondaryclasses and thus, he is classified as a P.G. Teacher. 3. It has been stated that the headmaster of the secondrespondent school has been acting in a mala fide manner, in tryingto upgrade teachers belonging to Christian religion. He has beenfoisting false charges on non-christian teachers, based on theimproper legal advice given by the law member, S.W.Kanagaraj. Basedon such false charges, actions have been initiated against variouspersons, contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu RecognisedPrivate Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. Since, the second respondentschool is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu RecognisedPrivate Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the Rules framedthereunder, as well as the directions issued by the variousGovernment orders, including G.O.Ms.No.1966, Education, dated29.11.1974, as such the second respondent School cannot terminatethe petitioner from service, without following the proceduresprescribed in the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation)Act, 1973, and the rules framed thereunder. Even though the secondrespondent school is a private minority school, it is Governmentaided and therefore, it has to abide by all the rules andregulations and the Government orders applicable to itsadministration. 4. The head master and correspondent of the second respondentschool had issued a show cause notice, dated 17.11.2004, makingcertain allegations against the petitioner and asking him to submithis explanation for the charges alleged. On 5.2.2005, an enquirynotice had been issued to the petitioner, by S.W.Kanagaraj, Member,Board of Directors, Madras Christian College Higher SecondarySchool, stating that, since the petitioner had failed to offer anexplanation to the show cause notice issued to him, the managementof the second respondent School had decided to conduct an enquiryagainst the petitioner, with regard to the charges levelled againsthim. Thereafter, by a communication, dated 3.3.2005, issued by theHeadmaster and Correspondent of the second respondent School, thepetitioner had been informed that one J.Thilagaraj, Advocate, hadbeen nominated as the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry againstthe petitioner. Thereafter, by an order, dated 23.9.2005, thepetitioner had been removed from service from the post of PostGraduate Assistant, with immediate effect, without following theprocedures established by law, as well as the principles of naturaljustice. Therefore, the impugned order of the second respondent,dated 23.9.2005, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the firstrespondent it has been stated that the second respondent school is aminority institution receiving aid from the state funds. As such, itis governed by the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools Rules (Payment of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Grant), 1977. However, the various provisions of the Tamil NaduRecognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the rulesframed thereunder, are not directly applicable in its administrationand governance. It has also been stated that it is not mandatory forthe second respondent school to obtain prior sanction and approvalfor the removal/dismissal of those who are employed by the school. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the secondrespondent, it has been stated that since the petitioner, who was aTelugu P.G. Assistant was having only minimum number of periods fortaking Telugu classes, he was allotted substitution work during someof his free periods. However, the petitioner had refused to sign thesubstitution work, amounting to insubordination. Further, thepetitioner had not been attending the school assembly to maintainthe discipline of the students, during the assembly. The petitionerhad also refused to sign the acquittance register from the month ofFebruary, 2002, despite the fact that he had been receiving hissalary, regularly. Since, the petitioner was setting a bad examplefor the other teachers, by his insubordination, charges had beenlevelled against him and an enquiry had been conducted. Thepetitioner had refused to attend the enquiry. Since, the explanationsubmitted by the petitioner was unsatisfactory he was removed fromservice, by an order, dated 23.9.2005, issued by the secondrespondent.7. Mr.Sanjay Mohan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe second respondent had submitted that the second respondentSchool is a minority aided school and therefore, it is not bound bythe provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools(Regulation) Act, 1973, and the Rules framed thereunder, as held bythe First Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 19.4.2007, inWrit Appeal No.621 of 2007 (T.Nagarajan Vs. The Director of SchoolEducation and three others). Therefore, the disciplinary actiontaken against the petitioner, with regard to the charges levelledagainst him cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Charges hadbeen framed against the petitioner and after due notice having beenissued to him, an enquiry had been conducted. The petitioner did notparticipate in the enquiry. Based on the findings of the enquiryofficer the petitioner had been asked to submit an explanation.Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was notsatisfactory, he was removed from service, by the impugned order,dated 23.9.2005, issued by the second respondent.8. Since, the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditionsof the appointment order, it is not open to him to approach thisCourt, by way of a writ petition filed, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, challenging the order of the secondrespondent, dated 23.9.2005. As the petitioner is bound by theagreement entered into at the time of his appointment he could availthe remedies provided for under the said agreement. Since thenecessary principles of natural justice had been followed by thesecond respondent before the passing of the impugned order, dated23.9.2005, removing the petitioner from service, the said order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Hence, the writ petitionfiled by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it isliable to be dismissed.9. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner,as well as the respondents and in view of the submissions made bythe learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concernedand on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of theconsidered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient causeor reason to interfere with the impugned order of the secondrespondent, dated 23.9.2005. The petitioner has not been in aposition to show that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu RecognisedPrivate Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the rules framedthereunder, are applicable to the case of the petitioner, as claimedby him. Further, it is clear from the decision of the First Bench ofthis Court, cited supra, that such rules and regulations could notbe applicable to minority aided institutions. As such, it cannot besaid that the management of the second respondent School hadviolated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools(Regulation) Act, 1973, and the Rules framed thereunder, in passingthe order, dated 23.9.2005, removing the petitioner from service.Further, it is seen that certain charges had been levelled againstthe petitioner, with regard to the various instances ofinsubordination said to have been committed by him. Thereafter, anenquiry notice had been issued, on 5.2.2005 and a communication,dated 3.3.2005, had been sent regarding the appointment of theenquiry officer. However, the petitioner had not availed theopportunity to defend himself during the enquiry, by participatingin the said enquiry. Thereafter, since the explanation submitted bythe petitioner, on 29.9.2005, was not satisfactory he was removedfrom service by the order, dated 23.9.2005. In such circumstances,it cannot be said that the impugned order, dated 23.9.2005, issuedby the second respondent, is illegal and void. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is liableto dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. csh Sd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Director of School Education,DPI, College Road, Chennai-6.+ 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.3614+ 1 cc to Mr. S. Ramasubramanian & Associates SR No.3198+ 1 cc to Mr. R. Subramanian, Advocate SR No.3359BKY(CO)SR/28.1.2010W.P.No.13045 of 2006