AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner was working in the second respondent unaided College as Principal and attained his age of superannuation on 14.7.1993. Placing
reliance on G.O.Ms.No.281, Education, dated 13.2.1981, which is, of course, applicable to the aided colleges, providing that if any teacher has to
retire in the middle of the academic year, he would be permitted to continue till the end of the academic year, the petitioner claims that he is entitled
for the benefit of the said G.O. and to work till the end of the respective academic year, viz.31.5.1994.
It appears that the petitioner also made a representation on 2.7.1993 to permit him to continue his service as Principal, till the end of the
academic year, viz. till 31.5.1994. The said representation dated 2.7.1993 was considered by the governing body of the second respondent-
College on 8.7.1993. However, the same was rejected. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved from service on 14.7.1993. Hence, the above
writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Jawahar College Staff Association
etc./Secretary, Jawahar Science College, etc. v. University of Madras & others, 1994 WLR 84, contends that whether the petitioner-College is
aided or unaided, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. 1976, squarely applies to the second respondent-College
and therefore, the condition of service which is applicable to the aided-College is equally applicable to the case of the petitioner, with all force.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.281, Education Department dated 13.2.1981, irrespective of the fact that the second
respondent-College is aided or not.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S. Sundaram, v. The
Secretary, CSI Diocese of Madras & Ors., W.A.No.1179 of 1993 dated 5.9.1994 and contends that even though the said academic year is
over, still the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the period for which he was not permitted to continue during the academic year June,
1993 to May, 1994.
Mr. Haridoss, learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent, do not dispute the contention that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Private College (Regulation) Act, is applicable to the second respondent. However, takes a strong exception as to the applicability of the
G.O.Ms.No.281, Education Department, dated 13.2.1981 to the second respondent- College, as they are not aided. In other words, it is
contended that the said G.O. is applicable only to the teachers working in the aided College but not in unaided College, viz., the second
respondent and contends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for.
I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.
In Jawahar College Staff Association etc./Secretary. Jawahar Science College, etc. v. University of Madras & others, 1994 WLR 84, a
Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
a reading of the provisions of the definitions of ''private college'' and ''educational agency'' in S.2 (8) and S.2 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Private
Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, makes it clear that whether a private college is an aided or an unaided college, whether it came into existence
either before or after the date when the Act came into force makes no difference as long as it is a college which is maintained by an educational
agency and approved by or affiliated to a university and permitted or deemed to be permitted under the Act and it has to be held that it is a Private
College felling within the scope of the Act.
The above proposition, of course, is not disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent, to the effect that the
second respondent-College conies within the purview of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. Similarly, it is not
disputed that till date the State has not framed any rule fixing the age of retirement either by exercising powers u/s 17 of the Act which deals with
the conditional service of teachers and others or by exercising Section 53 of the Act, viz., the rule making power. In the absence of such rules,
either made u/s 17 or u/s 53, I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though G.O.Ms.No.281, Education
Department dated 13.2.1981 is intended to be applicable for the teachers working in the aided Colleges, the same could be extended to unaided
Colleges also, as the condition of service of the teachers working in all the Colleges are expected to maintain uniformity, by applying the doctrine of
equal work, equal emolument. Mere absence of provisions will not, in my considered opinion, take away the rights of the petitioner working in the
unaided school, if they are otherwise entitled for the benefit'' of G.O.Ms.No.281, Education Department dated 13.2.1981, which enables the
teacher who retires in the middle of the academic year to continue till the end of the academic year.
Once such conclusion is arrived, at, I do not find any strain in moulding the relief that the petitioner should be compensated for the period he
was not permitted to work till the end of the respective academic year, viz., from 15.7.1993 to 31.5.1994, applying the ratio laid down by a
Division Bench of this Court in Sundaram v. Secretary, CSI Diocese of Madras & Ors., W.A.No.1179 of 1993, dated 6.9.1994 wherein the
Division Bench moulded the relief and directed the respondent therein to pay the amount for which the petitioner therein was not permitted to work
till the end of the academic year, which was subsequently confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP Nos.22604 to 22068 of 1994 on 4.1.1995,
Therefore, I am obliged to direct the second respondent to calculate the amount payable to the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.No.281, Education
Department dated 13.2.1981, had he been permitted to continue from 15.7.1993 to 31.5.1994 and to pay the same to the petitioner within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.