The Governing Council of American College v. The Director of Collegiate Education & Ors.

31.The Director of Collegiate Education, E.V.K.Sampath Building, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 0062.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, No.30, Vaidhyanatha Iyer Street, Madurai-20 3.Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar..Respondents/RespondentsW.A.No.312/09Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar..Appellant/Writ Petitioner-Vs-1.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 0062.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, No.30, Vaidhyanatha Iyer Street, Madurai-20 3.The Governing Council of American College, Rep. By its Principal and Secretary, Dr.P.R.Anbudurai (in-charge) American Collge Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai-024.Rt.Rev.Christopher Asir, The Bishop, Church of South India, Madurai & Ramnad Diocese, Rachanyapuram, Maoonumavadi, Madurai – 625 0075.Dr.V.George Selvakumar6.Dr.M.Devamani Christopher7.K.Ponnusamy ...Respondents/RespondentsWrit Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,against the common order dated 11.12.2008 of this Court inW.P.Nos.9760 , 9401 and 7844 of 2008.Prayer in WP(MD)No.9401 of 2008:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the recordsrelating to the impugned proceedings issued by the fourthrespondent Bishop dated 22.9.2008 quash the same as null andvoid. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4Prayer in WP(MD)Nos.7844 & 9760 of 2008:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the recordsrelating to the impugned order of the first respondent inRC.No.18902/G4/2008, dated 14.8.2008 and quash the same. For Appellant in WAs.790,796 and 797/08 and 12/09 : Mr. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Mr.AL.Somayaji and Mr.N.R.Chandran, Senior CounselFor Appellant in WA 312/09and For contesting respondentsin other Appeals: Mr.Issac MohanlalFor R-4 in WAs 796&797/08: Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel.For R-6 & R-7 in WAs 796 &797/08: Mr.V.R.VenkatesanC O M M O N JUDGMENT V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. These 5 Writ Appeals arise out of a common order passed bythe learned Judge in 3 writ petitions, 2 of which related to thereplacement of a Principal and Secretary of a college and thethird related to the dismissal from service of the incumbent inthe post of Principal.2. We have heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Mr.AL.Somayaji andMr.N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellants in 4 Writ Appeals and Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.312 of 2009 andalso the contesting respondent in the other Writ Appeals,Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for thefourth respondent in W.A.Nos.796 and 797 of 2008,Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the EnquiryOfficer, who is the sixth and seventh respondent respectively inW.A.No.796 and 797 of 2008.3. That it is possible at times, due to irony of fate, foran insignificant event to get flared up into a huge controversy,is amply demonstrated by the batch of cases on hand. In anutshell, one simple leave application by the Principal of aCollege led to (i) the appointment of the Vice Principal in hisplace, (ii) the suspension followed by enquiry and dismissal ofthe Principal by one group, (iii) the suspension of the VicePrincipal and appointment of another person as Vice Principal bythe other group and (iv) the refusal of the Director ofCollegiate Education to recognise the change of guard, all ofwhich ultimately landed up before this Court in 3 writpetitions, that have now become the subject matter of these 5writ appeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

54. Since the pleadings of parties are a mixture of chaff andgrain, we have carefully segregated them and furnish hereinbelow, only those facts which are just adequate to clinch theissues, in order to avoid a wild goose chase:-(a) A Society by name "Governing Council of the AmericanCollege, Madurai" was registered under the SocietiesRegistration Act, 1860, in June 1934 with a view to provide whatis termed in the bye-laws as "a liberal Christian HigherEducation".(b) As per the bye-laws, the membership of the Societycomprised of the following persons:-(i) Principal (Ex-officio)(ii) Vice Principal (Ex-officio)(iii) The Bursar (Ex-officio)(iv) Two permanent members of the Faculty elected by thepermanent members of the Faculty.(v) The Bishop in Madurai and Ramnad of the Church of SouthIndia (Ex-officio)(vi) One person nominated by the Executive Committee of theDiocesan Council of Madurai and Ramnad.(vii) One person appointed by the Synod of Church of SouthIndia.(viii) Two persons appointed by the All India Associationfor Christian Higher Education from Tamil Nadu Region.(ix) Three members co-opted by the Council.(x) One member nominated by the Madurai University.(c) Interestingly, Clause V.2 of the bye-laws prescribesthat the term of office for all members other than Ex-officiomembers shall be 2 years. Normally, the membership of anyregistered Society will not be for a fixed tenure though theExecutive/Managing Committee of a Society may be elected for aparticular term. A careful perusal of the bye-laws show thatthey have not been brought in tune with the provisions of theTamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, which now make itnecessary for the Societies registered under the Central Act, tobring their bye-laws in tune with the State enactment of theyear 1975. However, it is claimed that an exemption has now beenobtained from the Government, from the application of theprovisions of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act to theinstitution in question. (d) Before we proceed with our journey further, it is to benoted that the very name of the Society is "The GoverningCouncil of the American College" and hence wherever the phraseGoverning Council appears, in the bye-laws, it denotes theGeneral Body and not any executive committee.(e) Under Clause V.4(b) of the bye-laws, The GoverningCouncil (meaning the General Body thereby) has the power toappoint or terminate the services of the Principal, the VicePrincipal, the Bursar, the Professors and Heads of Departments,the Chaplain and Wardens of hostels. Clause V.4(b) onlyreiterates what is said in Clause IV(ii) that the Principal,Vice Principal and Bursar shall be appointed by the GoverningCouncil.( https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6(f) Clause IV(iii) stipulates that the Principal shall bethe Executive Head and Official Correspondent of the College andSecretary of the Governing Council. He is empowered to act asthe Official Representative of the Council in legal and othercapacities. He is entitled to make appointments to the Faculty,in consultation with the Vice Principal and Head of theDepartment, but the same is subject to the approval of theCouncil. The power to recommend the members of the Faculty tothe Governing Council for their continuance, confirmation ortermination also vests in the Principal under Clause IV(iii) ofthe bye-laws. In so far as the Non-Faculty members of the staffare concerned, the Principal alone has the power to appoint,determine their duties and terminate their services.(g) Under Clause IV(B), the Vice Principal is empowered toperform the duties of the Principal, in the absence of orinability of the Principal.(h) In terms of the bye-laws, the General Body of theSociety in question, viz., "The Governing Council of theAmerican College" passed a resolution in its meeting held on22.5.2006, appointing one Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, as thePrincipal of the College, with effect from 1.6.2006.Consequently, he also became the Official Correspondent of theCollege and the Secretary of the Society in terms of the bye-laws and hence the out going Principal filed Form-VI in termsof Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation)Rules 1976 with the Director of Collegiate Education. FormNo.VII in terms of Rule 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu SocietiesRegistration Rules, 1978 was also filed with the Registrar ofSocieties, relating to the change of Secretaryship. Upto thisstage, there was no dispute between the parties. (i) On 14.3.2008, the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj JosephJaikumar applied for Unearned Leave on Private Affairs for theperiod from 9.4.2008 to 2.5.2008. Since he wanted to go abroad,the leave application was forwarded to the Director ofCollegiate Education, for sanction, as the Institution is anaided minority institution. (j) However, on 8.4.2008, the Principal claims to have putup a notice in the Notice Board of the College to the effectthat his tour was called off. Interestingly, the said noticecontained a reference to certain “recent developments”, thoughit did not elaborate on the same. This notice gives sufficientindication that trouble was brewing in the Institution and waswaiting to erupt.(k) On 10.4.2008, the Bishop, who is also the Chairman ofthe General Body, issued a letter to the Vice PrincipalDr.V.George Selvakumar, describing him as Principal andSecretary in-charge and expressing the hope that he had assumedcharge in the place of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, in theevent of the Principal going on leave on private affairs from9.4.2008.(l) On 11.4.2008, the Director of Collegiate Educationpassed an order sanctioning leave to the PrincipalDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, with effect from 9.4.2008 to2.5.2008. Actually, the copy of this letter bears the signatureof the Superintendent of the Office of the Director of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7Collegiate Education with the date 17.4.2008 and the same isstated to have been received in the Office of the Principal ofthe College only on 19.4.2008. But the leave sought for, wasfrom 9.4.2008, which means that the leave was sanctioned onlyafter the period of leave had already commenced.(m) The letter dated 10-4-2008 given by the Bishop toDr.V.George Selvakumar, the then Vice Principal, to take chargeas Principal and Secretary in charge, led to acrimony on12.4.2008, resulting in police complaints followed by certainuntoward incidents, in which the Guru kshetra (abode ofteachers) became kurukshetra (battle field). Therefore on thevery same day viz., 12.4.2008, the Principal Dr. T.ChinnarajJoseph Jaikumar placed Dr.V.George Selvakumar under suspension,in contemplation of an enquiry into grave charges.(n) In retaliation, Dr.V.George Selvakumar, whom the Bishopdirected to function as Principal in-charge, convened a meetingof the General Council on 19.4.2008, with a claim that he wasthe Secretary of the Society by virtue of being the Principalin-charge. In the said meeting held on 19.4.2008, tworesolutions were passed (i) placing Dr.T.Chinnaraj JosephJaikumar, the Principal under suspension and (ii) appointingDr.V.George Selvakumar as Principal and Secretary in-charge.(o) The very authority of Dr.V.George Selvakumar, to convenethe meeting of the General Council on 19.4.2008, became thesubject matter of controversy. Adding to the agony, the verymembership of persons who attended the meeting on 19.4.2008,also became the subject matter of dispute.(p) Consequently, Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar stuck tohis seat as the Principal, on the basis that the resolutiondated 19.4.2008 was invalid. Per contra, Dr.V.George Selvakumarattempted to take over as the Principal and Secretary in-chargeon the strength of the resolution dated 19.4.2008.(q) What followed were a spate of complaints, countercomplaints, an enquiry by the RDO, peace committee meetings, awrit petition for police protection, an order under Section 145Cr.P.C., a Criminal Revision Petition on the file of this Courtetc. Since these events are not necessary for our presentpurpose and also since they are better forgotten as a bad dreamin the history of the college, we wish not to record them here.(r) Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, who continued to stake aclaim as the Principal and Secretary, convened a meeting of theGeneral Council on 28.5.2008. That Council passed certainresolutions, including a resolution (i) accepting new members tothe Society (ii) ratifying the suspension of Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar passed by the Principal on 12.4.2008 and (iii)appointing Dr.P.R.Anbudurai as the Vice Principal in the placeof Dr.V.George Selvakumar and Mr.C.Premkumar Immanuel as Bursarin the place of Dr.M.Devamani Christopher.(s) In a parallel move, the Bishop issued a charge memodated 17.6.2008 to Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar (Principal ofthe College). At the same time, Dr.V.George Selvakumar (the VicePrincipal nominated as Principal in-charge) filed a writpetition in W.P.No.5460 of 2008, challenging the very selectionof Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar 2 years ago as the Principal.This writ petition was dismissed even at the admission stage on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

820.6.2008.(t) However, on the basis of the nomination of Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar, as Principal and Secretary in-charge by the Bishop,a Form in Form No.VI was filed by the Bishop with the Directorof Collegiate Education, under Rule 9 (2) of the Tamil NaduPrivate Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, on 24.7.2008.Simultaneously, the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumaralso informed the Director of Collegiate Education about thesuspension of Dr.V.George Selvakumar.(u) On the request of the Bishop to record the change ofSecretaryship from Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar and on the counter request of Dr.T.Chinnaraj JosephJaikumar to take note of the suspension of Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar, the Director of Collegiate Education, passed anorder dated 14.8.2008. By this order, the Director of CollegiateEducation did two things viz., (i) set aside the suspension ofDr.V.George Selvakumar by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar and(ii) set aside the removal of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar asPrincipal and Secretary. In other words, the effect of thisorder of the Director of Collegiate Education was thatDr.V.George Selvakumar was to be reinstated as Vice Principaland Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar was to continue as Principaland Secretary.(v) Challenging the said order of the Director of CollegiateEducation dated 14.8.2008, the Governing Council represented bythe Bishop filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7844 of 2008.Interestingly, the Governing Council represented by Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar also filed a writ petition against the same orderdated 14.8.2008 of the Director of Collegiate Education inW.P.No.9760 of 2008.(w) In the meantime, the Bishop and Chairman appointed anEnquiry Officer and had an enquiry conducted ex parte againstDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, which culminated in an order ofdismissal from service dated 22.9.2008. Challenging hisdismissal from service, Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar filed awrit petition in W.P.No.9401 of 2008. Thus, there arose 3 writpetitions.5. All the 3 writ petitions (2 challenging the order of theDirector of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008 and one filedby Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, challenging his dismissalfrom service) were taken up together for disposal by the learnedJudge. A preliminary objection regarding the maintainability ofthe writ petition filed by the Principal, was raised by theGoverning Council on the ground that the institution is aminority institution and its right to appoint or terminate aPrincipal, cannot be questioned. The learned Judge overruled theobjection and held the writ petition filed by Dr.T.ChinnarajJoseph Jaikumar as maintainable, since it is an aidedinstitution.6. In the writ petition W.P.No.9401 of 2008 filed byDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, challenging his dismissal fromservice, primarily three contentions were raised viz., (i) thatthe entire disciplinary proceedings were without jurisdiction,as the membership of those who attended the meeting of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9General Council on 22.9.2008, was questionable; (ii) that therewere violations of principles of natural justice in the conductof the enquiry; and (iii) that two persons who deposed in theenquiry as witnesses on the side of the Management, were alsomembers of the Governing Council that passed the resolutiondated 22.9.2008 and hence the proceedings were vitiated by bias. 7. The learned Judge rejected the first ground of attack onthe ground that several disputed questions of fact about whoconstituted the Governing Council that met on 22.9.2008, whetherthey were actually the members of the Governing Council etc.,have arisen and that the same cannot be decided in a writpetition. The second ground of attack viz., the violation ofprinciples of natural justice, was also rejected by the learnedJudge on the ground that the then Principal failed toparticipate in the proceedings and that he had not establishedany prejudice due to the non-observance of the principles ofnatural justice. 8. However, the learned Judge accepted the third ground ofattack that there was a deep rooted bias on the part of theGoverning Council, in view of the rival claims and clashes bytwo groups and also in view of the fact that two witnessesparticipated in the deliberations of the Governing Council on22.9.2008. Therefore the learned Judge held that the resolutiondated 22.9.2008 deserved to be set aside. However, since it wasnot clear to the learned Judge as to who constituted theGoverning Council, the learned Judge felt that the matter couldnot also be remitted back to the Governing Council forproceeding from the stage at which the irregularity crept in.Therefore, the learned Judge ultimately stopped with a meredeclaration that the resolution dated 22.9.2008 was bad in lawand left the choice to the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj JosephJaikumar to approach the civil court for consequential reliefsand to participate in the proceedings, if initiated afresh, bythe same set of people who claimed to constitute the GoverningCouncil. 9. After declaring the resolution dated 22.9.2008,dismissing the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, to beillegal, the learned Judge proceeded to consider the findings ofthe Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women, which enquired intocertain untoward incidents that happened in the College, whenboth groups clashed with each other. Though the report of theCommission was not the subject matter of any of the three writpetitions and though the happenings in the campus, which led tothe order under Section 145 Cr.P.C., were not the issues raisedin the writ petitions, the learned Judge took note of the reportof the Women's Commission and disposed of W.P.No.9401 of 2008,with certain directions, which in brief run as follows:-(a) Dr.P.R.Anbudurai, the personappointed as Vice Principal, by thePrincipal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumarshould continue to act as the Principal/Secretary of the College and the JointDirector of Collegiate Education shouldmonitor the administration and issuesuitable advises to him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10(b) The District Collector andCommissioner of Police should provideadequate security.(c) Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, theBishop and Dr.V.George Selvakumar shouldapproach the Civil Court to get the disputesrelating to the validity of the disciplinaryproceedings resolved.(d) The continuance of Dr.P.R.Anbuduraias Principal in-charge, would be till aCivil Court grants any interim order orfinal order and till such time,Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, the Bishop,Dr.V.George Selvakumar and the BursarDr.M.Davamani Christopher should notinterfere in the administration.(e) The salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff should be paid directly bythe Director of Collegiate Education.(f) No opinion is expressed on thevalidity of the resolution dated 19.4.2008,by which Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar wassuspended. No finding is also recordedwhether the disciplinary proceedings leadingto the dismissal order of Dr.T.ChinnarajJoseph Jaikumar, are valid or not. However,the resolution dated 22.9.2008 dismissingDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar is declaredas bad in law, on the ground of bias.10. After disposing of W.P.No.9401 of 2008, filed by thePrincipal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, on the above lines,the learned Judge took up W.P.No.7844 of 2008, filed by theGoverning Council represented by Bishop and Chairman. It may berecalled that this writ petition was against the order of theDirector of Collegiate Education, dated 14.8.2008, by which theDirector rejected the request of the Bishop to take note of theresolution dated 19.4.2008 and the change of Principalship andSecretaryship from Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar. The learned Judge dismissed this writ petition onthe technical ground that under Clause IV(iii)(b) of the bye-laws, it is only the Principal/Secretary who is empowered to actas the official representative of the Council in legal and othercapacities. Therefore, the learned Judge held that the Bishopwas not competent to institute the writ petition on behalf ofthe Governing Council, in the absence of at least a specialresolution, by the General Council, authorising him to do so.11. After disposing of W.P.No.9401 of 2008 with thedirections extracted in paragraph-9 above and after dismissingW.P.No.7844 of 2008, the learned Judge took up W.P.No.9760 of2008, filed by the Governing Council with Dr.V.George Selvakumarrepresenting himself as the Principal and Secretary in-charge.This writ petition was also against the Director's order dated14.8.2008. Even in this writ petition, the question ofmaintainability of the writ by Dr.V.George Selvakumar was raised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11by the contesting respondents. The learned Judge found that thevery appointment of Dr.V.George Selvakumar as Principal andSecretary in-charge became highly contentious, especially in thelight of his suspension, by the Principal, by an order dated12.4.2008 and its subsequent ratification by the GoverningCouncil on 28.5.2008. Therefore the learned Judge held inparagraph-109 of his judgment that the writ cannot be held to bemaintainable. But at the same time, the learned Judge held thatthe order of the Director of Collegiate Education, dated14.8.2008, was without jurisdiction, as the College in questionis an aided minority institution, which was not obliged to getapproval for suspending a person and appointing someone else inhis place. Therefore, even while holding the writ to be notmaintainable, the learned Judge held the order of the Directorto be illegal and quashed the same. 12. The ultimate effect of the order passed by the learnedJudge in all the three writ petitions, could be summarised asfollows:- (a) That the resolution of the Governing Council dated22.9.2008 dismissing Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar is bad inlaw;(b) However, the consequences that flow out of the abovedeclaration regarding the resolution dated 22.9.2008 are to beworked out in a civil court, since the learned Judge felt thatwithout being able to arrive at a finding about who are themembers and who constituted the Governing Council, it was noteven possible to allow the disciplinary proceedings initiatedagainst Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to proceed from the stageat which the irregularities crept it;(c) The question as to who are the members of the GoverningCouncil was left open to be agitated by the parties before theappropriate Civil Court;(d) Till such time, the Civil Court decides any suchquestion and passes an interim or final order, Dr.P.R.Anbudurai,the person appointed as Vice Principal by the then PrincipalDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar should function as the Principaland Secretary in-charge, with the Joint Director of CollegiateEducation monitoring the administration;(e) The writ petition filed by Dr.V.George Selvakumarappointed by the Bishop as Principal and Secretary in-charge, isalso held to be not maintainable since his very appointment assuch was bogged down by controversies. However, the orderimpugned therein, viz., the order of the Director of CollegiateEducation dated 14.8.2008, rejecting the request of the Bishopto record the change of Secretaryship from Dr.T.Chinnaraj JosephJaikumar to Dr.V.George Selvakumar is also declared as bad,without there being any consequential orders;(f) The writ petition filed by the Bishop as representingthe Governing Council is dismissed as not maintainable on theground that the Secretary alone can represent the GoverningCouncil in legal matters;13. As against the disposal of the 3 writ petitions on theabove lines, by the learned Judge, all the writ petitioners havecome up with the present writ appeals, contending that the aboveorder has created more complications than those sought to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12resolved. The challenge in these appeals are as follows:-(i) W.A.No.790 of 2008 is by the Governing Councilrepresented by Dr. V. George Selvakumar challenging that portionof the order by which the learned Judge held the writ filed bythem in W.P.No.9760 of 2008 as not maintainable, though by thesame breath the learned Judge also declared the order impugnedin the writ to be bad in law.(ii) W.A.no.796 of 2008 is by the Vice Principal Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar and the Bursar Dr.Davamani Christopher, challengingthe order in W.P. No. 9401 of 2008 declaring the dismissal ofthe Principal to be vitiated by bias.(iii)W.A.No.797 of 2008 is by the Bishop (in his individualcapacity as Chairman) against the order in W.P.N.9401 of 2008declaring the dismissal of the Principal as bad.(iv) W.A.No.12 of 2009 is by the Governing Council,represented by the Bishop, challenging the dismissal of theirwrit W.P.No.7844 of 2008 arising out of the order of theDirector of Collegiate Education and(v) W.A.No.312 of 2009 is by the Principal Dr.T.ChinnarajJoseph Jaikumar against the refusal of the learned Judge togrant consequential reliefs in W.P. No.9401 of 2008 arising outof his dismissal from service. 14. Leading the attack, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned SeniorCounsel appearing for the Bishop (appellant in W.A.No.797 of2008), contended that since the institution in question is areligious minority institution and also since the GoverningCouncil is a Society registered under the Societies RegistrationAct, the very maintainability of W.P.No.9401 of 2008 wasdoubtful. He also found fault with the reliance placed by thelearned Judge on the report of the Tamil Nadu State Commissionfor Women and contended that since Dr.T.Chinnaraj JosephJaikumar deliberately abstained from participating in theenquiry proceedings, he was not entitled to attack the enquiryproceedings and the final order passed thereon. The learnedSenior Counsel submitted that the dismissal of W.P.No.7844 of2008 was also erroneous since the Bishop is the Chairman andhence he is always entitled to represent the Society.15. Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing forDr.V.George Selvakumar (appellant in W.A.No.790 of 2008),contended that in a writ petition filed by the Principal asagainst the order of his dismissal from service, the learnedJudge was wrong in displacing the very Management andAdministration. The learned Senior Counsel also took strongexceptions to the reliance placed upon the report of the TamilNadu State Commission for Women, both on the ground that theCommission exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it in law andalso on the ground that the Commission's report was originallysought to be filed before Court through an application, whichwas later withdrawn. Therefore the learned Senior Counselcontended that the Commission's report was not part of therecords. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that in viewof the law laid down by the Apex Court in TMA Pai case, the writwas not maintainable, since the post of a Principal is ofspecial nature and he has a pivotal role in the institution. Thelearned Senior Counsel assailed the finding recorded by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13learned Judge that there was deep rooted bias againstDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar on the part of the GoverningCouncil which passed the resolution dated 22.9.2008.16. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing forDr.V.George Selvakumar (appellant in W.A.No.796 of 2008)contended that a final order passed in the disciplinaryproceedings cannot be set aside solely on the ground ofviolation of principles of natural justice. According to thelearned Senior Counsel, the Court has to see if it is a case oftotal denial of opportunities or a case of lack of sufficientopportunities. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that even onadmitted facts, this case fell under the second category viz.,lack of sufficient opportunities and not under the category oftotal denial of opportunities. Therefore the learned SeniorCounsel submitted that the learned Judge ought not to havedeclared the final order to be illegal.17. Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing forDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, the contesting respondent in 4writ appeals and the appellant in W.A.No.312 of 2009, submittedthat the learned Judge ought to have granted consequentialreliefs after coming to the conclusion that the resolution dated22.9.2008 was bad in law. He further submitted that with just adeclaration, without a consequential relief, the order would liein vacuum. Though the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumarapplied for leave, it was sanctioned after the date on which theleave was to commence and hence he did not avail the leave.Therefore there was no occasion for the Vice PrincipalDr.V.George Selvakumar to assume charge and convene a meeting ofthe Governing Council on 19.4.2008, which triggered a chainreaction. Therefore the learned counsel even while supportingthe order of the learned Judge to the extent that the resolutiondated 22.9.2008 was declared to be bad, prayed for the grant ofconsequential reliefs. At the same time, the learned counselalso submitted that even till date, Dr.T.Chinnaraj JosephJaikumar continues to hold Office as the Principal, in view ofcertain interim orders passed at the time of admission of thewrit appeals, placing the administration of the College in thehands of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education. Therefore,the grant of consequential reliefs, is to have no adverse effecton the administration, either financial or otherwise.18. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe fourth respondent-Dr.P.R.Anbudurai, supported the case ofDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar and submitted that once theresolution dated 19.4.2008 goes, everything else would fall likea pack of cards. Therefore the learned Senior Counsel appealedto us to examine the validity of the resolution dated 19.4.2008.19. We have carefully considered the above submissions.Since a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of thewrit petition filed by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar is raisedby the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in 4writ appeals, let us deal with the same at the threshold.MAINTAINABILITY:20. As stated in our prelude, the Educational Agency of theAmerican College is known as “The Governing Council of theAmerican College”. It is a Society registered under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14Societies Registration Act. The College is also a religiousminority institution, receiving grant-in-aid from theGovernment. Therefore the objections to the maintainability ofthe writ petition are of two fold viz., (i) that a writ againsta Society is not maintainable; and (b) that a writ against aminority institution, especially in respect of the appointment,termination etc., of a Principal who holds a pivotal role, isnot maintainable. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellants, places reliance upon the decision in TMA PaiFoundation, specially with respect to question No.5(c) and theanswer thereto, found in paragraph-161 of the decision. Thequestion and answer are reproduced as follows:-“Q. 5.(c) Whether the statutoryprovisions which regulate the facets ofadministration like control over educationalagencies, control over governing bodies,conditions of affiliation includingrecognition/ withdrawal thereof, andappointment of staff, employees, teachersand principals including their serviceconditions and regulation of fees, etc.,would interfere with the right ofadministration of minorities?A. So far as the statutory provisionsregulating the facets of administration areconcerned, in case of an unaided minorityeducational institution, the regulatorymeasure of control should be minimal and theconditions of recognition as well as theconditions of affiliation to a university orboard have to be complied with, but in thematter of day-to-day management, like theappointment of staff, teaching and non-teaching, and administrative control overthem, the management should have the freedomand there should not be any externalcontrolling agency. However, a rationalprocedure for the selection of teachingstaff and for taking disciplinary action hasto be evolved by the management itself.For redressing the grievances ofemployees of aided and unaided institutionswho are subjected to punishment ortermination from service, a mechanism willhave to be evolved, and in our opinion,appropriate tribunals could be constituted,and till then, such tribunals could bepresided over by a judicial officer of therank of District Judge.The State or other controllingauthorities, however, can always prescribethe minimum qualification, experience andother conditions bearing on the merit of an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15individual for being appointed as a teacheror a principal of any educationalinstitution.Regulations can be framed governingservice conditions for teaching and otherstaff for whom aid is provided by the State,without interfering with the overalladministrative control of the managementover the staff.Fees to be charged by unaidedinstitutions cannot be regulated but noinstitution should charge capitation fee.”On the basis of the above, it is contended by the learned Seniorcounsel for the appellants that till a mechanism is evolved anda special Tribunal is constituted, the employees of minorityinstitutions cannot maintain a writ.21. At the outset, we wish to point out that the objectionto the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground thatthe institution is a Society, does not hold water any more.Article 226 (1) empowers this Court to issue directions, ordersor writs to "any person or authority". Therefore even a Societyis amenable to the writ jurisdiction, provided there is anelement of public duty. In Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree MuktajeeVandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust vs.V.R.Rudani {1989 (2) SCC 691}, a Trust registered under theBombay Public Trusts Act, was held amenable to the writjurisdiction. It was held therein that when public money is paidas Government aid, the aided institutions discharge publicfunctions and they become subject to the Rules and Regulationsof the Affiliating University. Therefore, the Supreme Courtopined that employment in such institutions is not devoid of anypublic character. Again in K.Krishnamacharyulu vs. SriVenkateswara Hindu College of Engineering {1997 (3) SCC 571},the Supreme Court held a writ filed even by the employees ofunaided private educational institution as maintainable on theground that the teachers get an element of public interest inthe performance of their duties. Hence the contention that awrit against a Society is not maintainable, cannot be acceptedas of universal application, especially since the institution inquestion in these appeals, receives grant-in-aid from theGovernment.22. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that sincethe Governing Council of the American College is a Society, theonly remedy available to the Principal as against his dismissalfrom service, is to go before the Civil Court, seeking damagesfor breach of the contract of appointment. In support of thesaid contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in StateBank of India vs. S.N.Goyal {2009 (1) LW 1}. But it was a casewhere the dismissal of the Manager of a Bank was challenged in acivil suit, praying for a declaration and mandatory injunction.The suit was decreed with a declaration and also a mandatoryinjunction for reinstatement with all consequential benefits.The decree was confirmed on appeal with an additional benefit in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16favour of the Manager. The second appeal was dismissed on theground that there was no substantial question of law. When thematter was taken to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court made adistinction between public employment and private employment andheld that there cannot be a specific performance of a contractof private employment. This view was taken especially in thelight of the provisions of Section 14 of the Specific ReliefAct, and in the light of the fact that it was a civil suit. Inour case, the employment of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar asPrincipal, would not fall under the category of privateemployment, since the institution receives grant-in-aid from theGovernment. The Supreme Court has already clarified in AnadiMukta's case that such employment would partake the character ofpublic employment. Further the writ appeals do not arise out ofcivil suits. Therefore, the decision in State Bank of Indiacase, arising out of a civil suit, cannot be applied to the caseon hand, which arises out of a writ petition.23. Moreover, the Supreme Court made it very clear inCorrespondent, St. Michael's Teacher Training Institute vs.V.N.Karpaga Mary and others {2008 (7) SCC 388}, that the reliefsto be granted in proceedings under different jurisdictions mayvary. It was held in paragraph-14 as follows:-“The Courts exercise differentjurisdictions while entertainingapplications filed under different statutes.While entertaining a suit, the Court'sjurisdiction would be governed by theSpecific Relief Act, 1963. Althoughprinciples laid down therein may be found tobe applicable, the said provisions bythemselves need not be strictly applied bythe High Court while exercising itsjurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India.”Therefore the contention that only a civil suit for damageswould lie and not a writ would lie, cannot be accepted.24. In so far as the next limb of the argument is concerned,it is an admitted fact that no Special Tribunal has so far beenconstituted, as observed by the Apex Court in TMA Pai case, inanswer to question No.5(c) in paragraph-161. Therefore, as ondate, the employees of minority institutions, especially thosereceiving grant-in-aid of the State, cannot be shut out fromthis Court. TMA Pai case, was primarily concerned about theadmission of students to educational institutions and the rightof the Government to have control over such institutions, whichare self-financed or partly financed by the Government and thosewhich are aided or unaided minority institutions. The questionof maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of anemployee of a minority institution was not directly in issue inTMA Pai case. It was considered incidentally when a questionarose about the right of the minority institutions to manage andadminister their own affairs and the effect of statutoryprovisions which regulated or controlled such management andadministration. Moreover, the answer provided under paragraph- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17161 of TMA Pai case, to question No.5(c) is not with respect tothe maintainability of the writ petition filed by an employee ofa minority educational institution. The Supreme Court was onlyconcerned with the statutory control and the control sought tobe exercised by the Government over such institutions. TheSupreme Court never gave an indication in TMA Pai case, that thedisciplinary proceedings initiated against the employees ofaided minority institutions are beyond the pale of judicialreview under Article 226. A careful reading of the entiredecision in TMA Pai case, would show that the Supreme Courtreiterated the fundamental principle that the right toadminister did not include the right to maladminister. Since thestatutes of various States provide protection to the employeesof other educational institutions and also since the minorityinstitutions are not amenable to such control, the Supreme Courtthought fit to suggest the creation of an alternative Forum orSpecial Tribunal for the redressal of the grievances ofemployees of minority institutions. The suggestion in the answerto question No.5(c) in paragraph-161 of TMA Pai case, is tocreate a Special Tribunal, as an alternative to any forumprescribed in the Statutes. It is not a suggestion to oust thejurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 nor to create aTribunal to replace the writ jurisdiction. Such an ouster ofjurisdiction is possible only by statute and the validity of anysuch statute is itself amenable to judicial scrutiny underArticle 226. After the decision of the Supreme Court inL.Chandrakumar case, even the decision of AdministrativeTribunal constituted as an alternative to the writ jurisdiction,became vulnerable to the writ jurisdiction. Therefore it is toolate in the day to say that the writ petition against an orderof dismissal of an employee of an aided minority educationalinstitution, is not maintainable.25. While construing the decision in TMA Pai case, theSupreme Court pointed out in P.A. Inamdar vs. State ofMaharashtra {2005 (6) SCC 537} that minority unaidedinstitutions have an unfettered right to choose students foradmission, but the procedure therefor should be fair,transparent and non-exploitative. If even in the matter ofadmission of students, especially to unaided minorityinstitutions, the test of fairness would apply, an aidedminority institution like the appellant cannot contend that theyhave an absolute unfettered right in the matter of terminationof the services of a Principal.26. All the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court,emphasising the pivotal role of the Principal/Headmaster of aneducational institution and the right of the minorities toappoint a candidate of their choice so as to synchronise withthe philosophy of the institution, cannot be applied to a caseof dismissal from service. A candidate seeking appointment orpromotion to the post of Principal/Headmaster does not have avested right except a right to be considered. In contrast, aperson appointed as Principal/Headmaster gets certain rightsvested in him by virtue of such appointment. Therefore thedecisions applicable in the case of selection and appointment ofPrincipal cannot ipso facto be applied to the termination or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18dismissal from service, where the right to livelihood protectedby Article 21 is sought to be infringed. 27. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of theDivision Bench of the Delhi High Court in St. Stephen's Collegevs. University of Delhi-W.P.No.5226 of 2008 dated 21.8.2008 inwhich a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court declared Clause 7(2) of the Ordinance XVIII of the Delhi University to beinapplicable to a minority institution. However that case wasconcerned with the constitution of Selection Committees forfilling up the post of Principal in Colleges affiliated to theUniversity. The case relating to an appointment cannot beequated to a case relating to termination or dismissal.28. As a matter of fact, the decision of the Delhi HighCourt followed to a great extent, the decision of the SupremeCourt in Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College vs. T.Joseand Others {2007 (1) SCC 386}. In that Malankara case, theSupreme Court considered in extenso, the earlier decisions ofthe Court in State of Kerala vs. Very Rev. Mother Provincial{1970 (2) SCC 417}, Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society vs.State of Gujarat {1974 (1) SCC 717}, Frank Anthony Public SchoolEmployees' Association vs. Union of India {1986 (4) SCC 707}etc. Then the Court also considered TMA Pai and P.A.Inamdar andsummarised the general principles on the right of minorities inparagraph-19 as under:-“19. The general principles relating toestablishment and administration ofeducational institution by minorities may besummarised thus:(i) The right of minorities toestablish and administer educationalinstitutions of their choice comprises thefollowing rights:(a) to choose its governing body inwhom the founders of the institution havefaith and confidence to conduct and managethe affairs of the institution;(b) to appoint teaching staff(teachers/lecturers andHeadmasters/Principals) as also non-teachingstaff, and to take action if there isdereliction of duty on the part of any ofits employees;(c) to admit eligible students of theirchoice and to set up a reasonable feestructure;(d) to use its properties and assetsfor the benefit of the institution.(ii) The right conferred on minoritiesunder Article 30 is only to ensure equalitywith the majority and not intended to placethe minorities in a more advantageousposition vis-a-vis the majority. There is noreverse discrimination in favour of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 19minorities. The general laws of the landrelating to national interest, nationalsecurity, social welfare, public order,morality, health, sanitation, taxation, etc.applicable to all, will equally apply tominority institutions also.(iii) The right to establish andadminister educational institutions is notabsolute. Nor does it include the right tomaladminister. There can be regulatorymeasures for ensuring educational characterand standards and maintaining academicexcellence. There can be checks onadministration as are necessary to ensurethat the administration is efficient andsound, so as to serve the academic needs ofthe institution. Regulations made by theState concerning generally the welfare ofstudents and teachers, regulations layingdown eligibility criteria and qualificationsfor appointment, as also conditions ofservice of employees (both teaching and non-teaching), regulations to preventexploitation or oppression of employees, andregulations prescribing syllabus andcurriculum of study fall under thiscategory. Such regulations do not in anymanner interfere with the right underArticle 30(1).(iv) Subject to the eligibilityconditions/ qualifications prescribed by theState being met, the unaided minorityeducational institutions will have thefreedom to appoint teachers/lecturers byadopting any rational procedure ofselection.(v) Extension of aid by the State doesnot alter the nature and character of theminority educational institution. Conditionscan be imposed by the State to ensure properutilisation of the aid, without howeverdiluting or abridging the right underArticle 30(1).”Again in paragraph-20, the Supreme Court held as follows:-“An institution can have the servicesof good qualified professional teachers onlyif the conditions of service ensuresecurity, contentment and decent livingstandards. That is why the State canregulate the service conditions of theemployees of the minority educationalinstitutions to ensure quality of education.Consequently, any law intended to regulate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20the service conditions of employees ofeducational institutions will apply tominority institutions also, provided thatsuch law does not interfere with the overalladministrative control of the managementover the staff.”29. Thus, in Malankara, the Supreme court cleared allpossible doubts, genuine or artificial, by holding in paragraphs19 (iii) and 20 that any regulations to prevent exploitation oroppression of employees and any law intended to regulate theservice conditions of employees of educational institutions,could not be construed as interfering with the right underArticle 30 (1). Therefore, the contention that an aided minorityinstitution is not amenable to Article 226, especially inrelation to the dismissal of a Principal, is just fanciful.Hence we hold that the writ petition filed by Dr.T.ChinnarajJoseph Jaikumar, challenging his dismissal from service, iscertainly maintainable and the learned Judge was right inholding so.CHALLENGE TO THE DISMISSAL OF PRINCIPAL DR.T.CHINNARAJ JOSEPHJAIKUMAR (W.P.NO.9401 OF 2008 AND THE APPEALS ARISING OUT OF THESAME):30. It is seen from the narration of facts in paragraph-4above, that the following sequence of events, ultimately led tothe order of dismissal of the Principal:-14.3.2008 – the Principal applies for unearned leave onprivate affairs to go abroad with effect from 9.4.2008 to2.5.2008. 8.4.2008 – the Principal puts up a notice in the NoticeBoard of the College, to the effect that his tour was calledoff. He also informs the Director of Collegiate Education.10.4.2008 – the Bishop issues a letter to the Vice PrincipalDr.V.George Selvakumar describing him as Principal and Secretaryin-charge and expressing hope that he had taken charge in theabsence of the Principal.12.4.2008 – tussle between the Principal and the VicePrincipal leading to locking up of the Principal's room, lodgingof police complaint, campus unrest etc.12.4.2008 – the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumarplaces the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar undersuspension.19.4.2008 – the order of the Director of CollegiateEducation, sanctioning the leave earlier sought for by thePrincipal, is received in the College and this order bears thedate 11.4.2008 with the signature of the Superintendent of theOffice of the Director, made on 17.4.2008.19.4.2008 – the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar,claiming to be the Principal and Secretary in-charge, convenesthe meeting of the General Council (General Body of the Society)and the General Council passes a resolution to suspend thePrincipal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, in contemplation of anenquiry into grave charges. Interestingly, it is in thismeeting, that the General Council also passes a resolutionappointing and authorising Dr.V.George Selvakumar to hold charge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 21as Principal and Secretary until further orders, though themeeting on that occasion itself had been convened only by him asthe Principal and Secretary in-charge.28.5.2008 – a meeting of the General Council convened byDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar approves the order of suspensionof the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar, passed by thePrincipal on 12.4.2008. This meeting also appointedDr.P.R.Anbudurai as the Vice Principal.17.6.2008 – a memorandum of charges is issued by the Bishopagainst the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar. Thecharges framed against him are (i) that he deliberately desistedfrom taking classes from 1.6.2006 to 31.3.2008, therebyviolating Rule 1 of the Code of Conduct, though even a Principalis required to take classes; (ii) that despite the order ofsuspension passed on 19.4.2008, he did not obey the same; (iii)that after applying for leave, he entered into the College andobstructed the Vice Principal from discharging his duties,without formally cancelling the leave sought for in a mannerknown to law; and (iv) that he obstructed the Principal in-charge from performing his duties by organising a demonstrationwithin the College campus and organising press meets and alsoresponsible for publication of derogatory news items in papersand magazines. 2.9.2008 – the Enquiry Officer appointed allegedly by theGoverning Council issues a notice of enquiry to the PrincipalDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar.9.9.2008 – Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar writes a letter tothe Bishop, challenging the suspension as well as disciplinaryproceedings, as illegal and without authority. Nevertheless, healso seeks copies of certain documents, so as to giveappropriate reply to the charges. 10.9.2008 – the Enquiry Officer holds an enquiry ex-parte,since the delinquent does not participate. 13.9.2008 – the Bishop forwards a copy of the enquiry reportdated 12.9.2008 and calls upon Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar toappear before the Governing Council and submit his explanationto the enquiry report, in person on 22.9.2008.22.9.2008 – Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar sends a telegramto the Bishop as well as to the Enquiry Officer. He also sends aletter on the same date, questioning the validity of theproceedings. Since he was continuing as Principal on that date,he also challenged the veracity of the statement of the EnquiryOfficer that the enquiry was held in the campus of the College.22.9.2008 – the resolution impugned in W.P.No.9401 of 2008is passed, resolving to dismiss Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumarand to appoint Dr.V.George Selvakumar in his place as thePrincipal. 31. The above sequence of events are borne out both by therespective pleadings and by the records. Therefore, the abovedates and events can be taken to be unassailable. It is fromthese sequence of events that we may now have to retrieve thetruth and find out the solution to the problem on hand. 32. The leave application of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumarand the events that took place upto 19.4.2008, make two thingsvery clear viz.,:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 22(i) Though the leave application was made on 14.3.2008, forproceeding on leave from 9.4.2008, the sanction for the leavewas granted by the Director of Collegiate Education, only by anorder dated 11.4.2008, issued on 17.4.2008 and received in theCollege only on 19.4.2008. In other words, the Principal wasexpected to proceed on leave from 9.4.2008, but he did notreceive the sanction order at least till the date of departure.The Bishop now contends that on earlier occasions, the Principaldid proceed on leave even before the sanction order was receivedand hence he could have adopted the same procedure this timealso. But such a contention is very hard to accept. If a personholding a pivotal post (like Principal), proceeds on leave evenbefore it is sanctioned, it could always be taken exception to.Therefore the fact that the Principal had done so on earlieroccasions, is not a good precedent for the management to compelhim to do so again and again. A Principal proceeding on leavewithout receiving a sanction order can be found fault with, buta Principal not proceeding on leave, for want of a sanctionorder cannot be said to be at fault. (ii) The records show that the Principal did not actuallyavail the leave. Though the Bishop has taken a stand in thecounter affidavit that the Principal absented himself on andfrom 9.4.2008, the charge framed by the Bishop himself exposesthe falsity of such a stand. Charge No.3 against the Principalis that the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar did notcancel his leave application in a manner known to law, butentered the college and obstructed the Vice Principal fromacting as the Principal. Therefore it is clear that thePrincipal was in fact available physically. The charge that heought to have cancelled the leave in a manner known to law,before coming to college, is reflective of a wrong understandingof the law on the point. An employee has no right to proceed onleave, especially on unearned leave on private affairs, withouta sanction. If the relationship between the employee and theemployer is good, it may be open to the employee to proceedwithout a sanction and it may be open to the employer to grant apost facto sanction. The question of cancelling the leaveapplication would arise only after the leave is sanctioned. Ifthe leave applied for is not sanctioned, till the date of theintended commencement of leave, the employee has no business toproceed on leave. If he is not entitled to proceed on leave, forwant of sanction in writing, there is no question of his seekingcancellation. In other words, a leave application which is notsanctioned till the intended date, need not be cancelled. Aleave application is not like an application for voluntaryretirement, where withdrawal before the acceptance is necessary. 33. Once it is admitted that till 9.4.2008, the intendeddate of departure of the Principal, the sanction order was notreceived, then it follows as a corollary that he was entitledto, nay, duty bound to attend College, which is what he did. Theallegation on the side of the Bishop that the Principal did notattend College from 9.4.2008 is falsified by the charge memo. Itis also falsified by the very letter of the Bishop dated 10-4-2008 by which he appointed the Vice Principal as Principal incharge. In that letter there is no whisper that the Principal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 23has absented himself from 9-4-2008, necessitating theappointment of the substitute. Actually, the very fact that thePrincipal attended the College, appears to be the actualgrievance of the Bishop. Admittedly, the PrincipalDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar was not instructed to abstain norplaced under suspension till the meeting held on 19.4.2008.Therefore, it is clear even on admitted facts that the PrincipalDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar was actually functioning as thePrincipal during the said period and was lawfully entitled so tofunction. 34. Under bye-law No.IV(iii)A(a), the Principal is the headand official correspondent for the College and the Secretary ofthe Governing Council. Under bye-law No.IV(iii)B(a), the VicePrincipal is empowered to perform the duties of the Principal“in the absence or inability of the Principal”. The VicePrincipal Dr.V.George Selvakumar was thus entitled to performthe duties of the Principal, only in the absence or inability ofthe Principal. During the period from 8.4.2008 upto 19.4.2008,the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, was neither absentnor under any disability. Therefore, there was no occasion forthe Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar to perform the dutiesof the Principal and adorn the mantle of Secretaryship of theSociety. 35. While so, it is perplexing as to how the Bishop issued aletter on 10.4.2008 to the Vice Principal Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar, describing him as the Principal and Secretary in-charge, when the Principal was neither absent nor under anydisability to attend College either before or on 10.4.2008, thedate of the letter. In any case, despite describing Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar as the Principal and Secretary in-charge, the letterof the Bishop dated 10.4.2008 made it clear that the assumptionof charge by Dr.V.George Selvakumar, of the post of Principaland Secretary in-charge, was “in the event of Dr.T.ChinnarajJoseph Jaikumar on leave”. That event never happened and henceDr.V.George Selvakumar could not have assumed charge asPrincipal and Secretary. 36. But unfortunately, the Vice Principal Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar, was emboldened by the letter of the Bishop dated 10-4-2008, to attempt to stage a coup on 12.4.2008, despite thepresence of the Principal, leading to certain unpleasantincidents in the campus. This date 12.4.2008 consequently becamethe 9/11 in the history of this age old and reputed institution.The attempt made by the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar onthe strength of the Bishop's letter dated 10.4.2008 to assumecharge as Principal and Secretary, even though the Principal wasnot absent or disabled, was clearly contrary to bye-law No.IV(iii)(B)(a). It was also violative of the very terms of theBishop's letter to him dated 10.4.2008, which merely expressed ahope that he would have taken charge “in the event of theDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar on leave”. 37. It is only after the college campus became a war zone on12.4.2008 that the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumarconvened a meeting of the Governing Council on 19.4.2008.Therefore, did he have the power to do so, is the next question https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 24to be considered. 38. Bye-law No.V.3 of the bye-laws reads as follows:-“3. Meetings.(a) All meetings shall be called by theSecretary in consultation with thePresident.(b) Regular meetings may be held at anytime, but shall ordinarily be held in Augustand March. Emergency meetings may be calledby the Secretary with at least three days'notice. Special meetings shall be called onreceipt of a written request therefor by notless than four members of the Council. Suchrequest must state the business to betransacted. No other business shall betransacted at the meeting.(c) The quorum for a meeting shall beeight members.”39. It is very clear from bye-law No.V.3 that all meetingsof the Governing Council shall be called by the Secretary inconsultation with the President. While regular meetings are tobe held in August and March, emergency meetings are to be calledby the Secretary with at least 3 days notice. Special meetingsmay be called on receipt of a written request by not less than 4members. 40. In the light of the above bye-law No.V, the very meetingconvened by Dr.V.George Selvakumar on 19.4.2008, usurping tohimself, the post of Secretary, was wholly illegal. The meetingheld on 19.4.2008, was not convened by the Secretary, as perbye-law No.V.3(a), since Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar and notDr.V.George Selvakumar was the Secretary on that date. Themeeting was also not an emergency meeting nor a special meeting,in terms of clause V.3(b) of the bye-laws, since the Secretarydid not convene the meeting with 3 days notice nor was itconvened on a written request by 4 members. Therefore themeeting convened on 19.4.2008, at the instance of Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar was wholly illegal and contrary to bye-laws.Consequently, the two resolutions passed in the said meeting (i)suspending the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar and (ii)appointing Dr.V.George Selvakumar as the Principal and Secretaryin-charge, are also illegal.41. Incidentally, the conduct of the Vice PrincipalDr.V.George Selvakumar is also dubious. As we have seen from thenarration of facts in paragraph-4 above, Dr.T.Chinnaraj JosephJaikumar was selected and appointed as the Principal, by theresolution of the Governing Council dated 22.5.2006. After 2years of such appointment and after all the ugly incidents thattook place between 10.4.2008 and 19.4.2008, suddenly wisdomdawned upon Dr.V.George Selvakumar that the very appointment ofDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar was illegal. Therefore,Dr.V.George Selvakumar filed a writ petition W.P.No.5460 of 2008in June 2008, challenging the resolution of the GoverningCouncil dated 22.5.2006, selecting Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 25Jaikumar for appointment. But that writ petition was dismissedin limine, by a learned Judge of this Court, on 20.6.2008, evenat the stage of admission. Interestingly, W.P.No.5460 of 2008was filed by Dr.V.George Selvakumar in June 2008, against thevery Governing Council, of which he claimed to be acting asSecretary from 10.4.2008. Therefore he was perhaps thepetitioner as well as the respondent in that writ petition. Itis an irony that this very same person, who filed a writpetition challenging his non selection to the post of Principal,raises the question of maintainability of the writ filed by thePrincipal against his dismissal from service.42. We summoned the records relating to W.P.No.5460 of 2008,from the Registry and found that though the writ petition wasfiled in June 2008, Dr.V.George Selvakumar did not think fit tomake any averment in his affidavit, relating to the events thathappened on and from 9.4.2008, culminating in the so calledsuspension of the Principal on 19.4.2008. As a matter of fact,Dr.V.George Selvakumar himself was placed under suspension bythe Principal on 12.4.2008 and this fact was also not referredto in the affidavit. He was thus guilty of suppression ofmaterial facts in the previous writ petition. Even in the writpetition now filed by him representing himself to be theSecretary, he has not disclosed anything about the previous writpetition filed by him challenging the appointment of thePrincipal. This goes to show that he had a hidden agenda, forcalling for a meeting of the Governing Council, on 19.4.2008,without the authority of law. 43. After passing the resolution on 19.4.2008, in the abovemanner, suspending the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj JosephJaikumar, the same Governing Council decided to initiatedisciplinary proceedings against the Principal. Accordingly, acharge memo dated 17.6.2008 was issued to the Principal. We havealready extracted the charges in an earlier paragraph. ExceptCharge No.1, which related to the alleged failure of thePrincipal to take classes, all the other 3 charges revolvedaround the leave application, its withdrawal and the events thatpreceded and succeeded the resolution dated 19.4.2008. Thus, thecharge memo was clearly a by-product of the meeting convened byDr.V.George Selvakumar on 19.4.2008. 44. Both groups raised serious disputes about the membershipof the persons who attended the meetings of the General Councilon three occasions viz., (i) on 19.4.2008, in which a resolutionwas passed suspending the Principal; (ii) on 28.5.2008, in whicha resolution suspending the Vice Principal was passed and (iii)on 22.9.2008, in which a resolution was passed dismissing thePrincipal from service. Both groups filed Form-VII before theRegistrar of Societies. However, the original Minute Books ofthe Governing Council were produced before Court by thePrincipal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, when we summoned them.45. The learned single Judge found that the question as towho were actually the members of the Governing Council on thoserelevant dates, was a disputed question of fact into which aWrit Court cannot go. To this extent, the learned Judge is alsoright. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2646. However, the Court can certainly take note of two thingsviz.,(i) it was not very essential for the Court to find out thevalidity of the membership of those who attended the meetings onthe above three dates since it was not the central axis aroundwhich the 3 writ petitions had to spin; (ii) in any event, thequestion was not camouflaged in codes and ciphers, requiring theservices of a Cryptographer to break. As we have observedearlier, the Society has only a membership of 14 even in theGeneral Body, as seen from the bye-laws. The very name of theSociety is "Governing Council of American College". The membersof the General Body are as follows:-(1) Principal.(2) Vice Principal.(3) Bursar.(4) Two permanent members of the Faculty elected by thepermanent members of the Faculty.(5) Bishop.(6) One person nominated by the Executive Committee ofDiocesan Council of Madurai and Ramnad.(7) One person appointed by Synod of Church of South India.(8) Two Persons nominated by All India Association forChristian Higher Education for Tamil Nadu Region.(9) Three persons co-opted by the Council.(10) One member nominated by the Madurai University.47. Till 9.4.2008, the date on which the Principal wasoriginally expected to proceed on leave, no dispute had arisenwith regard to who were the members of the Society. Even as on9.4.2008, there could not have been any dispute about who was -(i) the Principal (ii) the Vice Principal (iii) the Bursar (iv)the Bishop (v) members of the permanent faculty and (vi) themember nominated by the Madurai University. By calling upon (i)the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council of Madurai andRamnad, (ii) the Synod of Church of South India and (iii) theAll India Association for Christian Higher Education, to furnishdetails, the names of persons actually nominated by them as on9.4.2008 could also be found out. This process would actuallymake available the names of 11 out of 14 members of the GeneralBody. Once the 11 members out of a 14 member-General Body isidentified, the remaining 3 members (to be co-opted) could alsobe fixed by finding out who were actually co-opted by theCouncil. Therefore, the issue was actually not as complicated asis projected by the appellants.48. However, we do not wish to carry out the above exercise,for it is beyond the scope of the writ appeals on hand. We havejust recorded the above aspects only to point out that it wasnot something which was beyond comprehension.49. Coming back to the events that followed the charge memo,it is seen that the Principal did not submit an explanation tothe charge memo, but questioned the validity of the proceedings.When the Enquiry Officer issued a notice of enquiry dated2.9.2008, the Principal sent a letter dated 9.9.2008, seekingcopies of certain documents to enable him to give a reply. Butunfortunately, that letter was not even replied to by the Bishopto whom it was addressed. The copy of that letter was also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 27marked to the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer could haverejected or accepted the request made by the Principal in hisletter dated 9.9.2008 and called upon him to attend the enquiry.But he did not do anything. On the contrary, the EnquiryOfficer, in the penultimate paragraph of the enquiry report,claims that the letter was received after he concluded theenquiry ex parte and went back to his residence. 50. Be that as it may, 15 witnesses appeared before theEnquiry Officer and filed their proof affidavits. 15 documentswere taken on record as exhibits. Dr.V.George Selvakumar wasexamined as witness No.4 and the Bursar Dr.M.DavamaniChristopher was examined as witness No.6. The Enquiry Officersubmitted a report dated 12.9.2008 and the same was communicatedto the Principal by the Bishop on 13.9.2008. 51. Thereafter, a meeting of the Governing Council tookplace on 22.9.2008, in which 9 persons participated. Two out ofthose 9 persons were Dr.V.George Selvakumar and Dr.M.DavamaniChristopher. It is this Committee which passed the resolutiondismissing the Principal and appointing Dr.V.George Selvakumarin his place as Principal. Thus, Dr.V.George Selvakumar played akey role in the entire drama that unfolded in all the eventsthat took place from 12.4.2008 to 22.9.2008. 52. Interestingly, bye law No.V.3(c), which we haveextracted above, prescribes that a quorum for any meeting shallbe 8 members. In the meeting held on 22.9.2008, there were 9persons, out of whom 2 deposed in the enquiry as witnesses 4 and6. Thus, the witnesses also adorned the mantle of Jury/Judges.If these two persons had recused themselves, from being the"gentlemen of the jury(?)", only 7 persons would have been thereat the meeting, which was not sufficient to constitute thequorum. It is also to be noted that there is a dispute about themembership of even the other persons who attended the meeting.Though the by laws mandate the presence of a nominee of theUniversity, in the Governing Council, there was none on 22-9-2008. We need not even go into the said dispute, since two outof 9 persons who attended the meeting, were witnesses-turned-Judges. 53. In The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs.L.K.Ratna and others {1986 (4) SCC 537}, a question arose aboutthe correctness of the President, Vice President and othermembers of the Disciplinary Committee, participating in themeeting of the Council, held to consider the enquiry report andto decide on the punishment. The Supreme Court held inparagraphs-25 and 26 as follows:-“25. We must remember that thePresident and the Vice-President of theCouncil and three members of the Councilcompose the Disciplinary Committee. ThePresident and the Vice-President docertainly hold significant status in themeetings of the Council. A member whoseconduct has been the subject of enquiry bythe Disciplinary Committee ending inconclusions adverse to him can legitimately https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 28entertain an apprehension that the Presidentand the Vice-President of the Council andthe other members of the DisciplinaryCommittee would maintain the opinionexpressed by them in their report and wouldpress for the acceptance of the report bythe Council. To the member whose conduct hasbeen investigated by the Committee, thepossibility of the Council disagreeing withthe report in the presence of the Presidentand the Vice-President and the other membersof the Committee would seem rather remote.His fears would be aggravated by thecircumstances that the President wouldpreside over the meeting of the Council, andwould thus be in a position to control andpossibly dominate the proceedings during themeeting. We do not doubt that the Presidentand the Vice-President, and also the threeother members of the Disciplinary Committee,should find it possible to act objectivelyduring the decision-making process of theCouncil. But to the member accused ofmisconduct, the danger of partisanconsideration being accorded to the reportwould seem very real indeed.26. The objection on the ground of biaswould have been excluded if the statute hadexpressed itself to the contrary. Butnowhere do we find in the Act any evidenceto establish such exclusion. It is true thatby virtue of Section 17(3) it is obligatorythat the Disciplinary Committee should becomposed of the President and the Vice-President of the Council and three othermembers of the Council. While that is so,there is nothing in the Act to suggest thatthe meetings of the Council must always bepresided over by the President or the Vice-President, and that no meeting can be heldin their absence. We find that Regulation140 framed under the Act contemplates thatthe Council may meet in the absence of thePresident and the Vice President, andprovides that in their absence a memberelected from among the members who arepresent should preside. There is an elementof flexibility which makes it possible forthe Council to consider the report of theDisciplinary Committee without theparticipation of the members of theCommittee. Because of the 'flexibility'potential in the scheme, the doctrine of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 29necessity, to which reference has been madeon behalf of the Institute, cannot come intoplay. We must admit that it does appearanomalous that the President and the Vice-President of the Council should be disabledfrom participating in a meeting of theCouncil because they are bound by statute tofunction as the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, andwere it not for the factor of flexibilitywhich we see in the scheme, we would havebeen compelled to the conclusion that theAct implies an exclusion of the doctrine ofbias.”54. In The Syndicate, Anna University and others vs. Dr.N.Lingappan and others {2006 Writ L.R. 855}, a Division Bench ofthis Court had an occasion to consider the same issue, withrespect to a statutory appeal. The Vice-Chancellor of the AnnaUniversity, acting as the disciplinary authority, imposed apenalty, as against which the delinquent filed an appeal to theSyndicate. In the Syndicate meeting held to consider the appeal,the Vice-Chancellor also participated. His participation in themeeting was held to have vitiated the decision of the Syndicate,by the learned single Judge. On appeal to the Division Bench,the University contended that the Vice-Chancellor is the exofficio Chairman of the Syndicate under Section 17(3) of theAnna University Act, 1978 and hence he is bound to be part ofthe Syndicate proceedings. It was also argued in that case thatthe delinquent admitted the charge in the enquiry and pleadedfor a lenient penalty. But the Division Bench overruled thecontentions of the University and held that “it will be againstthe canons of justice that the punishing authority is also partof the appellate mechanism”. Thus, in Anna University case, theDivision Bench of this Court overruled even the doctrine ofnecessity, despite a statutory prescription enabling the Vice-Chancellor to participate. Therefore, if the doctrine of biascan be applied even at the stage of appeal, it should certainlybe applied at the stage of the original proceedings. 55. In Valliappan K.M. vs. Joint Director of SchoolEducation {2006 (4) CTC 471}, relied upon by the learned singleJudge in his order under appeal, the Full Bench of this Courtheld that the participation of the members of the SchoolCommittee in the disciplinary proceedings as witnesses and theirsubsequent participation in the deliberations of the SchoolCommittee while deciding the penalty to be imposed, amounted toviolation of principles of natural justice. 56. The law laid down in the aforesaid decisions apply inall fours, to our case. As we have stated earlier, the meetingheld on 19.4.2008 was convened by Dr.V.George Selvakumar,usurping to himself the post of Principal and Secretary in-charge, contrary to the bye-law which permitted the VicePrincipal to act as such, only in the absence of or inability ofthe Principal. It was in that meeting that the Principal was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 30ordered to be placed under suspension. Subsequently, Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar filed a writ petition in June 2008, challenging theappointment of the Principal in May 2006. In the background ofthese facts, his appearance as a witness in the enquiry and hisparticipation in the meeting held on 22.9.2008, certainlydemonstrated beyond any pale of doubt, the existence of bias.What is more, Dr.V.George Selvakumar also had the blessings ofthe Bishop throughout. Therefore, the conclusion that the entireproceedings are vitiated, is not only inevitable but alsoirresistible. 57. Once we find that the whole proceedings are vitiated,then there can be no second thought as to the relief that shouldbe granted to the victim of such proceedings. But the learnedJudge felt intimidated by the controversies regarding themembership of the Council and the dispute as to whether thosewho participated in the meeting held on 22.9.2008 were theactual members or not. Consequently, the learned Judge stoppedwith a mere declaration that the resolution dated 22.9.2008 isbad. But, in our considered view, these controversies need notdeter us from taking our conclusion to its logical end, since wehave found the whole proceedings, starting from the nominationof the Vice-Principal to act as the Principal and Secretary in-charge on and from 10.4.2008, his convening of the meeting on19.4.2008, the resolutions passed therein and the culmination ofthose proceedings in the dismissal of the Principal by theresolution dated 22.9.2008 are wholly illegal. This isespecially so, since 3 out of 4 charges framed against thePrincipal related to his withdrawal of the leave application andthe events that happened after the resolution dated 19.4.2008.Therefore, we hold that the entire proceedings againstDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar are vitiated and hence he isentitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.58. A contention was raised by the learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellants that the Principal Dr.T.ChinnarajJoseph Jaikumar ought to have appeared before the GoverningCouncil on 22.9.2008 and objected to the presence of Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar and Dr.M.Davamani Christopher. Since he did not evenappear before the Council, the learned Senior Counsel contendedthat he cannot be heard to raise such a contention now in thewrit petition.59. The above objection cannot be sustained for thefollowing reasons viz., (i) the Principal could not be expected to have apremonition that those two persons (witnesses) are likely toparticipate in the deliberations on 22.9.2008; (ii) in any case, as observed by the Supreme Court in RattanLal Sharma vs. Managing Committee Dr.Hari Ram Higher SecondarySchool {1993 (4) SCC 10}, when a plea goes to the root of thematter and is based on admitted and uncontroverted facts anddoes not require any further investigation into a question offact, the Court is duty bound to go into the same. It wasobserved in paragraph-12 of the said decision that the bias ofone of the members of the inquiry Committee, percolatedthroughout the inquiry proceeding, vitiating the principles ofnatural justice and making the findings of the Committee, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 31product of a biased and prejudiced mind. The case on hand issimilar and the illegality of procedure is so patent and loudlyobtrusive that it leaves an indelible stamp of infirmity or vicewhich cannot be obliterated. (iii) Bye law No.VIII(a) clearly provides that even when theemoluments, status or privileges of any individual member of theGeneral Council are to be discussed in any meeting of theCouncil, the Chairman should first invite the individual to makea statement and the member should thereafter retire from themeeting till the matter is discussed and settled. Therefore,even without the Principal appearing before the Council on22.9.2008 and objecting to the presence of those witnesses-turned-Judges, they should have retired on their own accord, inkeeping with the spirit of bye law No.VIII(a) and in keepingwith the high traditions of fair play, justice and goodconscience. Since they failed to do so, we have no hesitation inholding the entire proceedings to be vitiated.60. Moreover, we do not think that the Principaldeliberately abstained from participating in the enquiry. Thefirst and only notice of enquiry sent by the Enquiry officer, isdated 2-9-2008. In response to this notice, the Principal sent aletter, not merely questioning the validity of the proceedingsbut also seeking copies of certain documents. Neither theenquiry officer nor the Bishop rejected the request, beforeproceeding ex parte with the enquiry on 10-9-2008. Therefore,there is no substance in the contention that the Principaldeliberately failed to participate in the proceedings. In suchcircumstances, the whole proceedings are liable to be set asidewith all consequential benefits to the Principal. DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE:61. Coming to the reliance placed by the learned Judge onthe report of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and thevarious directions issued by him in paragraph-90 of the judgmentappointing Dr.P.R. Anbudurai, we are of the considered view thatthey are extraneous to the lis before the Court. There wereactually only 3 writ petitions, one by the Principal challenginghis dismissal and the other 2 filed in the name of the GoverningCouncil, against the order of the Director of CollegiateEducation, dated 14.8.2008 refusing to recognise the VicePrincipal as the Principal and Secretary in-charge. Thereforethe scope of these 3 writ petitions was confined only to thevalidity of the order of dismissal of the Principal and thecorrectness of the order of the Director of CollegiateEducation. None of the writ petitioners invited any finding orprayed for the appointment of any person as an administrator.The parties did not come to court with any allegations ofmismanagement or maladministration and prayed for appointment ofan administrator. Therefore, the findings recorded inparagraphs-86 to 89 of the judgment and the directions issued inparagraph-90 of the judgment, were beyond the scope and purviewof the writ petitions and hence they cannot be sustained.Moreover, the report of the State Commission for Women was notplaced before the Court in an appropriate manner, to enable allthe parties to submit their objections to the report. Thereforethe findings recorded in paragraphs-86 to 89 of the judgment and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 32the directions issued in paragraph-90 of the judgment on thebasis of the Commission's report, are to be set aside.CHALLENGE TO THE DIRECTOR'S ORDER DATED 14.8.2008:62. Now let us come to the two writ petitions W.P.Nos.7844and 9760 of 2008 (out of which W.A.Nos.790 of 2008 and 12 of2009 arise), which challenged the order dated 14.8.2008 of theDirector of Collegiate Education. By this order dated 14-8-2008,the Director of Collegiate Education did two things. He setaside (i) the suspension of the Vice Principal Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar and the Bursar Dr.M.Davamani Christopher ordered bythe Principal and (ii) set aside the change of Secretaryshipfrom Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to Dr.V. George Selvakumar. 63. The above order of the Director of Collegiate Educationwas challenged in one writ petition by the Governing Councilrepresented by the Bishop and Chairman. It was challenged inanother writ petition in the name of the Governing Council byDr.V.George Selvakumar representing himself as the Principal andSecretary in-charge. The learned Judge dismissed the writpetition filed by the Bishop on the ground that he was notcompetent under the bye laws to institute legal proceedings onbehalf of the Governing Council. The learned Judge held theother writ petition also to be doubtful of maintainability,since the very nomination of Dr.V.George Selvakumar as Principaland Secretary in-charge was questionable. Yet, the learned Judgedeclared the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated14.8.2008 to be without jurisdiction, in view of the fact thatmany provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation)Act, are not applicable to a minority institution. 64. The above approach of the learned Judge, in holding awrit to be not maintainable and at the same time, declaring theorder impugned therein to be void, does not appear to becorrect. If a writ is not maintainable, the Court should desistfrom adjudicating upon the merits of the dispute, since any suchadjudication would be an encroachment into a forbidden territoryand would tend to have an influence upon any subsequent lis thatthe appropriate persons may bring forth.65. In so far as the writ filed by the Bishop is concerned,it is seen from bye law No.IV(iii)(b) that the Principal isnamed as the official representative of the Council in all legalmatters, except where the Council specifically determinesotherwise. Therefore, in any proceeding instituted by theGoverning Council, it should be represented only by the personauthorised by the bye-laws. It is the Principal who isauthorised by the bye-laws. If the Principal is at loggerheadswith the Governing Council, resulting in the Governing Councilnot being able to ventilate its grievances in a Court of law,then the Governing Council should take advantage of theexpression “except where the Council specifically determinesotherwise” found in bye-law No.IV(iii)(b) and pass a resolutionauthorising someone else to institute the proceedings. It isonly if this procedure is adopted that anyone other than thePrincipal and Secretary would be competent to institute theproceedings in the name of and for and on behalf of theGoverning Council. Since this procedure was not adopted by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 33Bishop before instituting W.P.No.7844 of 2008, the dismissal ofthe said writ petition by the learned Judge cannot be foundfault with. Therefore, the writ appeal W.A.No.12 of 2009 arisingout of the said writ petition is liable to be dismissed.66. Coming to the writ petition filed by Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar, describing himself as the Principal and Secretary,we have found in the earlier paragraphs that he was appointed bythe Bishop by a communication dated 10.4.2008, as Principal andSecretary in-charge, in anticipation of the PrincipalDr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar proceeding on leave from9.4.2008. But the Principal did not actually proceed on leave.Therefore, the appointment of Dr.V.George Selvakumar asPrincipal and Secretary in-charge never came into effect. Itcannot also come into effect, in view of the provision in thebye-laws that the Vice Principal can perform the duties of thePrincipal only in the absence or inability of the Principal.Therefore, the writ filed by him in W.P.No.9760 of 2008 for andon behalf of the Governing Council, describing himself as thePrincipal and Secretary, is not maintainable, though he wasentitled to agitate the correctness of the order of the Directorof Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008, in his individualcapacity, as he was affected thereby. Alternatively, he shouldhave obtained a resolution of the General Council authorisinghim to institute the proceedings on behalf of the Council, bytaking advantage of the exception provided in bye-law No.IV(iii)(b). Since Dr.V.George Selvakumar neither filed the writ in hisindividual capacity nor got a resolution of authorisation fromthe Governing Council, the writ petition filed by him inW.P.No.9760 of 2008, as rightly held by the learned judge, wasnot maintainable. Once it is held that the said writ was notmaintainable, there was no question of recording a finding oradjudicating upon the correctness of the order of the Directorof Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008 impugned in the saidwrit petition. Therefore, the finding given by the learned Judgein paragraph-108 of the judgment, declaring the order of theDirector of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008 as void abinitio and without jurisdiction, is liable to be set aside andthe writ petition W.P.No.9760 of 2008 is liable to be dismissedas not maintainable.67. In any event, it is represented that Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar retired on superannuation on 31.5.2009. Therefore,Form No.VI filed by the Bishop under Rule 9(2) of the Tamil NaduPrivate Colleges (Regulations) Rules, substituting Dr.V.GeorgeSelvakumar as Principal and Secretary in-charge in the place ofDr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar does not survive for adjudicationany longer. Hence, an enquiry into the correctness of the orderof the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008, as ondate, will only be an academic exercise. Therefore, both thewrit petitions W.P.Nos.7844 and 9760 of 2008 are actually liableto be dismissed. But as stated earlier, there is a small hitch.Since W.P.No.7844 of 2008 was dismissed by the learned Judge,the appeal W.A.No.12 of 2009 arising out of the same can bedismissed without difficulty and hence it is dismissed. Theother writ petition W.P.No.9760 of 2008 was held by the learnedJudge as not maintainable, but nevertheless, the learned Judge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 34said that it is “disposed of”, in view of the finding recordedby the learned Judge that the order of the Director is withoutjurisdiction. Thus, the petitioner in W.P.No.9760 of 2008Dr.V.George Selvakumar, actually got a declaration even whilehis writ was held to be not maintainable. Therefore, we do notknow why he has come up with a writ appeal in W.A.No.790 of2008. Now that he himself has come up with an appeal, we allowthe appeal, in exercise of the power under Clause 15 of theLetters Patent, set aside the declaration issued by the learnedJudge regarding the order of the Director. Once the order passedin the writ petition is set aside, the writ petition comes backto the surface and becomes amenable to an examination underArticle 226 by us, in view of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.Therefore, by exercising the said power, we dismiss the writpetition as not maintainable, in view of the fact that theappointment of the Vice Principal to act as Principal never cameinto effect and hence he was not entitled to represent theGoverning council. 68. In the result----(i) W.A.No.790 of 2008 is allowed and we set aside thatportion of the order of the learned Judge whereby theproceedings of the Director of collegiate Education is declaredas void. Consequently the writ petition W.P.No. 9760 of 2008 istaken up and is dismissed as not maintainable. Since the writ isnot maintainable, the validity of the Director's order dated 14-8-2008 cannot be gone into. No costs.(ii) The appeal W.A.No.12 of 2009 is dismissed. No costs.(iii) W.A.Nos.796 and 797 of 2008 are partly allowed and thefindings recorded in paragraphs-86 to 89 and the directionsissued in paragraph-90 of the impugned judgment, on the basis ofthe report of the Tamilnadu State Commission for Women, are setaside. However the declaration made in W.P.No.9401 of 2008 thatthe dismissal of the Principal Dr.T Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar isvitiated, is sustained. Consequently, the interim arrangementmade at the time of admission of these appeals, is vacated andthe Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education is directedto hand over charge of the administration to the Secretary. Nocosts.(iv) W.A.No. 312 of 2009 is allowed declaring the wholeproceedings initiated against the Principal Dr.T.ChinnarajJoseph Jaikumar culminating in the order of dismissal, to beillegal and further holding that he is entitled to continue asPrincipal with all consequential benefits without having to goto a Civil Court. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Accounts)/True Copy/Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 35To1.The Director of Collegiate Education, EVK Sampath Building, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, No.30, Vaidhyanatha Iyer Street, Madurai-20.+Five Ccs to Mr.N.Krishnaveni, Advocate, SR.Nos.23378,79,80,81,82+Two Ccs to M/S.Isaac Mohanlal, Advocate, SR.Nos.23263+Four Ccs to The Special Governemnt Pleader, SR.Nos.23446,47,48,49Svnrl/NSV – 14C – 11.9.2009Commmon Judgment in W.A.(MD)Nos.790, 796 and 797 of 2008 and 12 and 312 of 2009 24-08-2009