Paul Wilson vs Stale of Tamil Nadu

S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order calling for the records of the fourth Respondent in his proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 6173/A2/98 dated 26.6.1998 and quash the same and recognise the Petitioner as the Manager of the Kattathurai High School and pass such further orders.

Kattathurai High School was founded by Yovan Yesuvadian and Isravel Azhagianayagam. In the agreement entered into between them, the rights and the mode of devolution of their respective rights to manage the institution was stated. There was some dispute in regard to the management and ultimately in Second Appeal No. 1117 of 1962 the right to manage the school was declared to be shared between the successors of Yovan Yesuvadian and Isravel Azhagianayagam. It is stated that one Chelliah became the manager and after his death, the Petitioner became the manager, pursuant to the declaration by this Court.

During the year 1996-97, the Petitioner applied for approval of management in his favour on the basis of the bequest alleged to have been made by his father Chelliah. Respondents refused to give approval which necessitated the Petitioner to file writ petition No. 15456 of 1996. In that Writ Petition one Rajamani filed a petition to get himself impleaded as a party. The Writ Petition was dismissed against which the Petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A. No. 189 of 1997 and stay was granted. In view of the stay order, the Petitioner is still continuing as the manager of the school.

As per the directions of this Court in S.A. No. 1117 of 1962, the school has to function along with the co-manager and one Russalnayagam functioned in that capacity. Again as per the directions of this Court, the Petitioner has to function for the academic year 1998-99 for which he issued a letter to the fourth Respondent for approval. Respondent-4 wanted the specimen signature of the former co-manager which was also complied with in time. In spite of complying with all the requirements sought for by the fourth Respondent, approval is not granted.

While so, the Petitioner received a notice on 26.06.1998 wherein an order has been given by the fourth Respondent stating that the payment of salary to the teachers will be made directly by the department, since there is a dispute regarding the right to manage the school. According to the Petitioner, this order is per se invalid and the same is liable to be quashed.

It is further submitted that once the right to manage the school is declared in Second Appeal No. 1117 of 1962, the fourth Respondent cannot refuse to approve him, nor he can pass an order that the Government will pay the salary directly to the teachers which amounts to interference in the right of the management. The impugned order is invalid since he was not heard before passing the same.

It is further staled that such an order came to be passed only at the instance of Rajamani, who on an earlier occasion wanted himself to the impleaded, but failed. It is also stated that Rajamani has already filed a suit for his right to manage the school in which no interim order has been granted. So long as there is no interim order or recognition of the claim of Rajamani by any authority, the fourth Respondent acted illegally in passing the order.

Even at the time of admission, I wanted the learned Counsel to produce the documents, especially, a copy of the plaint in the suit filed by Rajamani. But the same were not produced. Some documents pertaining to the suit was placed before me. He also produced genealogical table to contend that Rajaniani cannot have any claim as the manager of the school. But, from the affidavit filed by Rajamani, placed before me, it could be inferred that the suit filed by him was one for declaration and for consequential prohibitory injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 6 therein from interfering with his right of management as co-owner or as a co-manager along with them.

One thing is clear, when the claim is put forward by a third person that he is also entitled to manage the school, the question whether he is entitled to any relief in the suit is not a matter which has to be considered by this Court. I am only concerned with the question whether the impugned order passed by the authorities could be justified?

On an earlier occasion, when the fourth Respondent refused to approve the appointment of the Petitioner, he came to this Court in a writ petition. Even at that time, Rajamani wanted to get himself impleaded. No order was necessary in that petition, since the writ petition itself was dismissed. The Petitioner preferred writ appeal and the same is pending.

Now, the civil suit is pending before the Court of law claiming the right of the management. Naturally, the fourth Respondent was bound to take note of the same. In this connection, it is also to be noted that the impugned order is only ordering direct payment to the teachers. In a decision reported in 1996 Writ L.R. 439 (Kandasamy, P. v. The District Educational Officer, etc.), a single Judge of this Court held that the management has no vested right to obtain amounts from the State. The relevant portion reads thus:

It is quite clear that there are special circumstances which justified an order being made directing the payment of the salary to the teachers by the authorities directly. The aid given is meant for the teachers there is no vested right in the Petitioner to obtain amounts from the State. Petitioner is not deprived of any right by the direct payment of salaries. It is in the interest of the institution and of the teachers which are far more important and these interests are well served by the impugned order.

If the Petitioner has no right to claim that he alone will pay the amount on getting the amount for teachers and if there are materials to show that the act of the fourth Respondent was bona fide and based on materials placed before him, I do not think that I should interfere with the impugned order of the fourth Respondent.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he has only filed a suit for declaration of title as a co-manager and so long as the declaration is not granted, he is entitled to act as manager. I do not think that this submission could be accepted. Where there is any inter se dispute in the right of management and whether there is a possibility of the institution being mismanaged because of the dispute arc matters which the authorities will have to consider while passing the order for direct payment. The argument that only after the decree is passed in favour of Rajamani, such an order could be passed is without any merit.

The writ petition is also defective for one more reason. The said Rajamani had represented before the authorities that he is entitled to manage the institution and this claim was taken note of while passing the impugned order. Naturally, he is also entitled to be heard in the writ petition. At the lime when the matter came up for admission on 21-07-1998, I asked the counsel whether he wanted to implead Rajamani also as an additional Respondent. In clear terms, he said that he does not want to implead him. In my view, non-impleading of the said Rajamani also stands in the way of entertaining this writ petition.

In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and consequently the same is dismissed. No costs. In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition, the connected W.M.P. is also dismissed.