Jayakrishna Aided Primary School v. Joint Director of Elementary Education Chennai 62

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:30.9.2008CORAM;THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.NOs.17878 OF 2001 and 15494 of 2008,W.P.M.P.No.1088 of 2008 in W.P.No.17878 of 2001,and M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.15494 of 2008W.P.No.17878 of 2001Jayakrishna Aided Primary Schoolrep. by its SecretaryTmt.S.MohanaraniEachavariValayapatti PostNamakkal Taluk & District..Petitionervs1.Joint Director of Elementary EducationChennai 62.District Elementary EducationalOfficerNamakkalNamakkal District3.A.PalanichamySecondary Grade TeacherJayakrishna Aided Primary SchoolEachavari, Valayapatti PostNamakkal Taluk & District..RespondentsW.P.No.15494 of 2008A.Palanichamy..Petitionervs.1.The District Elementary Educational OfficerNamakkalNamakkal District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The SecretaryJayakrishna Aided Primary SchoolEachavari, Valayapatti PostNamakkal Taluk & District..RespondentsWrit Petition No.17878/2001 is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for the issue of writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed bythe 1st respondent in his Proceedings Mu.Mu.No.12028/Thoka.J.3/2001dated 19-7-2001 confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondentin his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.1324/A4/97 dated 17-10-2000 and quashthe same and direct the respondent 2 to consider and pass orders onthe approval Petition submitted by the Petitioner School dated1.12.1998 on merits. Writ Petition No.15494/2008 is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for the issue of writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus calling for the entire records relating to the impugnedorder passed by the 2nd respondent in her proceedings No.Nil, dated24.06.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct therespondents to reappointment the petitioner in the 2nd respondentschool for the period from 01.07.2008 to 31.05.2009. for petitioner in W.P.No.17878/2001 :Mr.T.Sellapandian for petitioner in W.P.No.15494/2008 and for R3 in W.P.No.17878/2001 :Mr.C.Prakasamfor respondent No.2 in W.P.No.15494/2008 :Mr.R.Subramaniamfor respondent Nos.1 & 2in W.P.No.17878/2001and for respondent No.1 inW.P.No.15494 of 2008 :Mr.K.H.Ravikumar G.A.(Edn.,)COMMON ORDERThe third respondent in W.P.No.17878/2001 is the WritPetitioner in W.P.No.15494/2008. The said third respondent wasappointed as a teacher in the petitioner school inW.P.No.17878/2001, namely, Jayakrishna Aided Primary School,Eachavari, Valayapatti Post, Namakkal District. In 1984, somecharges appeared to have been framed against the third respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ based on which the petitioner management wanted to terminate hisservices after conducting enquiry. In the meantime, the thirdrespondent got promoted himself as Headmaster in the petitionerschool which is an aided school governed by the provisions of theTamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act and therules made thereunder. Based on the disciplinary proceedings thepetitioner appeared to have approached the second respondentseeking permission to dismiss the 3rd respondent from service. Thesaid permission was not granted, however the management wasdirected to take a lenient view instead of terminating the thirdrespondent from service. It was, under those circumstances, thethird respondent who became Headmaster was reverted to the post ofteacher. It appears that as against the said order the thirdrespondent has approached this Court in W.P.No.10798/1997 whichcame to be dismissed on 13.6.1994 stating that there is noillegality in the reversion of the third respondent as a teacher.Thereafter, a fresh charge memo has been issued against the thirdrespondent on 30.12.1994 and based on the enquiry again thepetitioner management wanted to terminate the petitioner fromservice as per order dated 6.2.1995 and approached the secondrespondent for approval. The second respondent by order dated7.10.2000 has rejected the approval or request stating that alreadyin respect of the same charges the third respondent was demotedfrom the post of Headmaster to the post of teacher. As against therejection order of the second respondent dated 7.10.2000, theappeal filed before the first respondent-Joint Director ofElementary Education also came to be dismissed on 19.7.2001 for thesame reason.2.In the meantime, the 3rd respondent has continued as ateacher in the petitioner’s school and he has attained the age ofsuperannuation on 14.6.2008. Since it was in the middle of theacademic year He claimed that he has got a right to continue tillthe end of the next academic year, namely, March 2009. The 3rdrespondent has made a request to the second respondent which wasrejected by the second respondent in the order dated 24.6.2008,which is challenged in W.P.No.15494/2008. In the said order dated24.6.2008 the second respondent rejected the claim of the 3rdrespondent on the ground that he is involved in various othermisconducts and in fact he is also facing disciplinaryproceedings. It is also stated in the said order that even earlierdue to his misconduct he was demoted from the post of Headmaster tothat of teacher and therefore, it is not possible to have him tillthe end of the academic year. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the writpetitioner in W.P.No.15494 of 2008, on instructions would submitthat the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on14.6.2008 and after that, his period was not extended by themanagement and that the petitioner is not pressing the said writpetition since he is not interested in extending his service underthe management.4.The said statement of the learned counsel for thepetitioner in W.P.No.15494/2008, Mr.C.Prakasam is recorded.5.In view of the said statement by the learned counsel forthe petitioner, no further order is required in W.P.No.15494 of2008. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.15494/2008 stands dismissed.6.Insofar as W.P.No.17878/2001 is concerned, inasmuch asthe educational authorities have rejected the proposal of themanagement to terminate the services on the basis that the earliercharges framed against the 3rd respondent in 1984 and the presentcharges framed against him in 1994 are almost same and therefore,such permission for termination cannot be granted requires to beseriously considered. Under these circumstances, the parties weredirected to file the documents to show as to the nature of theprevious charges as well as present charges against which atermination proposal has been given by the management.7.The learned Government Advocate has produced the recordsto show the previous charges and the present charges.8. A reading of those charges makes it clear that the chargesare shown as vague in nature and not specific and also relating tosome aspect that the teacher has not been co-operating with themanagement in conducting the classes and that he is involving inmaking complaints to the authorities against the management.However, under the second charge memo there is one doubt about theinvolvement of the teacher in civil and criminal cases. It wasunder those circumstances, the learned Government Advocate wasdirected to produce the records to show the nature of the civil andcriminal cases in which the third respondent is stated to haveinvolved.9.On production of the records by the learned GovernmentAdvocate, it is clear that the civil and criminal cases which arestated to have been involved by the petitioner are relating to hispersonal matter, not connected with his duty as a teacher and thatthe charge is since the third respondent is involved in civil andcriminal cases, he is not able to concentrate on the work as ateacher in the writ petitioner school. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.In view of the said fact that the involvement in civiland criminal cases is only new charge in 1994, later, it has beenexplained by the learned Government Advocate, there is nodifficulty to come to the conclusion that the charges in theearlier cases as well as present case are one and the same andtherefore, the impugned order passed by the educational authoritiesin refusing to grant permission to terminate the services of thethird respondent cannot be said to be either illegal or irregular.Moreover, as stated earlier, the 3rd respondent who got demoted fromthe post of Headmaster as that of a teacher has also completed asteacher on 14.6.2008 and he has given his willingness not tocontinue as teacher till the end of the next academic year and insuch circumstances considering the nature of charges both in 1984and 1994 which are not very serious, but as I Have stated earlierare vague in nature, especially, relating to the conduct of the 3rdrespondent in making representation against the petitionermanagement, I am of the considered view that the writ petitioner inW.P.No.17878/2007 is not entitled to any relief in this writpetition inasmuch as the impugned order of the educationalauthorities are not illegal.11.In view of the same, W.P.No.17878/2001 stands dismissed.12.No costs. Consequently, connected pending miscellaneouspetitions are also dismissed.SalSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Joint Director of Elementary EducationChennai 62.The District Elementary EducationalOfficerNamakkalNamakkal District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ + 1 cc to Mr. S. Mani, Advocate SR No. 56649+ 1 cc to Mr. C. Prakasam, Advocate SR No. 56501 1 cc to Government Pleader SR No. 56624RSM(CO)SR/15.10.2008W.P.NOs.17878 OF 2001 and 15494 of 2008,W.P.M.P.No.1088 of 2008 inW.P.No.17878 of 2001,and M.P.No.1 of 2008 inW.P.No.15494 of 2008