AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—In these two Writ Petitions, the School Management challenges the order passed by the District Elementary Educational
Officer dated 24.3.2007.
In the first order made in Na.Ka. No. 8099/A1/04 dated 24.3.2007, the District Elementary Educational Officer cancelled the recognition
granted to the Secretary of the School Committee by name R. Thangaraj. Originally, the School Committee''s nominations were approved by the
Department by proceedings dated 1.11.2004 and the period of three years comes to end on 18.7.2007.
Under Rule 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 ""the term of office of the Secretary shall ordinarily be
three years. However, he shall be eligible for renomination as Secretary for subsequent terms. If the educational agency intends to change the
Secretaryship within the period of three years, it shall do so only with the prior permission of the District Educational Officer.
In the second impugned order of the same date, on the ground of cancellation of approval approval to the Secretaryship, the Department has
resorted to Direct Payment System with effect from 1.4.2007. Therefore, the Additional Elementary Educational Officer, Watra was authorised to
draw the teachers'' grant and pay it to the teachers directly.
Mr. V. Selvaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no necessity to resort to Direct Payment System. Cancellation of the
Secretaryship for which approval was granted as early as on 1.11.2004 was done without any justification. He states that the said cancellation has
been done at the instance of one Ms. Devika, who was working as Headmistress in the said School and who was also suspended by the School
Management by an order dated 16.3.2007. It was stated in that order that her continuance in the School was against the interests of the School
and that the charges levelled against her were grave in nature. However, this order of suspension is not under challenge by the said Headmistress
though she has been arrayed as 5th respondent in the Writ Petitions.
With regard to the 5th respondent, the following reasons are given by the Department:
(i) Tmt. Devika was directed to be restored to her post with effect from 15.2.2007.
(ii) As per the resolution of the School Committee, the said Devika has been suspended with effect from 16.3.2007, but the resolution of the
School Committee was not enclosed;
(iii) No proper notice was given for convening the School Committee Meeting; and
(iv) The entire exercise was made only with a bad motive in order to remove the Headmistress.
Therefore, for the above reasons, the District Elementary Educational Officer considered the suspension of Tmt. Devika was wrong and she
was directed to be continued in duty and by the School Management. It was also stated that if the School Management failed to follow the said
direction, then the recognition granted to the School would also be cancelled. In view of the above and in the light of the government Orders, the
department''s advice and court''s judgment as the School was functioning against teachers'' interest, the approval granted to the Secretary to the
School Committee was cancelled. On the strength of this order, the Direct Payment System was also resorted to.
Mr. V. Selvaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the question of getting any approval for the suspension order does not
arise in terms of the T.N. Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974. It only contemplates an intimation of the suspension order and the
Rule 17(2) merely directs that whenever a teacher or other person employed in a private school is kept under suspension, such suspension shall
immediately on the date of issue of the suspension order be intimated by the Secretary of the School Committee to the District Educational Officer
concerned along with a copy of the suspension order. Nowhere it contemplates the resolution of the School Committee being accompanied along
with the suspension order.
However, Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent/Headmistress states that all School Committee Resolutions
must be communicated to the authorities. It presupposes that such a resolution should also accompany the order of suspension. But, a bare reading
of Rule 14(3) clearly shows that a copy of the minutes shall be communicated by the Secretary of the School Committee to the District Educational
Officer within 15 days from the date of such meeting. Therefore, one cannot telescope Rule 14(3) into Rule 17(2) and then try to establish that a
communication of the School Committee''s resolution is a precondition for making a valid suspension. On the other hand, the reading of Rule 17(2)
clearly shows that it is only an intimation and not an approval. The question of approving the suspension of a teacher will arise only in terms of
Section 22(3) of the T.N. Recognised Prviate Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and where if the suspension goes beyond a period of two months,
then it contemplates prior approval from the competent authority.
In the present case, the learned Counsel for the 5th respondent, Mr. R. Vijayakumar submits that even after the period of two months
suspension, the headmistress was not restored to her service and no attempt to get prior approval from the authorities for extension of suspension,
has been obtained by the School Management. In any event, according to the learned Counsel, on 15.7.2007, since four months period has
elapsed and as per Section 22(3)(b) in the absence of any extension, the 5th respondent is deemed to have been restored to her duty in the School
and therefore, necessary direction should be given for the restoration of the service of the 5th respondent. Further, he stated that the School
Secretary''s term has also come to an end by 18.7.2007. This last submission overlooks the fact that a Secretary is eligible for renomination. Under
Rule 13(2) until a new Secretary is elected the existing Secretary can continue. Any other construction will lead to vacuum and not contemplated
under the Act and Rules.
At this juncture, the Court cannot go into the submissions made by the 5th respondent''s counsel because 5th respondent had not come before
this Court challenging the impugned order and she cannot get any relief for herself collaterally in these Writ Petitions. The rights of the 5th
respondent is intact and if she is so advised, it is well open to her to file an appropriate petition for restoration of her service.
To this, Mr. V. Selvaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are serious allegations against the 5th respondent and it is not a
mere departmental action but a criminal case is also pending in C.C. No. 182 of 2007 before the Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Srivilliputtur.
Therefore, the management can de hors the provisions of the Act, can keep the Headmistress outside and pay salary to her rather than permitting
her to continue in service pending the criminal case. The suspension order given to her is not directly before this Court in these Writ Petitions. The
only reason given by the official respondent is that the School Committee''s resolution was not enclosed and a proper notice was not given to
convene the School Committee Meeting. For all practical purposes, the resolution was also sent to the authorities later. With reference to notice
for convening the meeting it can be safely said for an emergence the rule will not apply and only a member of the School committee can complain
about the lack of notice.
Under these circumstances, excepting the extreme step take by the D.E.O. in cancelling the approval granted to the Secretaryship, no other
allegation is made against the School. However, the learned Addl. Government Pleader states that serious allegations have been raised about the
School Management vide memo dated 15.2.2007 and explanation was called from the School Management. It is also seen from the records that a
detailed explanation has also been given pursuant to the show cause notice and so far no final orders have been passed in respect of the said
cancellation.
In the impugned order, the only reason given was that Tmt. Devika''s suspension was illegal because the School Committee''s resolution was
not enclosed and for the School Committee meeting, no prior notice was given. Except for these two reasons no other reasons were found in the
impugned order. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 24.3.2007 will stand set aside and the Writ Petition (MD) No. 3336 of
2007 will stand allowed.
Once that order is set aside a consequential order will have to follow because the further order dated 24.3.2007 resorting to direct payment
system was also made only on the basis of cancellation of approval granted to the Secretaryship of the School Committee. In view of the fact that
the other Writ Petition is allowed, consequently, Writ Petition (MD) 3337 of 2007 is also allowed. The respondents 1 to 4 are directed to restore
the Grant in Aid to the School forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.