AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kanakaraj, J.—1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 14894 of 1994 is the appellant in the writ appeal. His case in the writ petition is as follows:-
He completed the Plus Two Examination as well as the Diploma Course in Teacher Training and applied for the appointment as teacher in the third
respondent School. He was duly selected and appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent School, which is a recognised aided
School. According to him, the third respondent/Management had taken signatures in certain blank papers and utilised the same as a resignation
letter. Consequently, after the Summer Vacation in June, 1991 he was prevented from entering the School as and from 4.7.1991 treating the same
as a termination of service. The appellant filed W.P. No. 9459 of 1991 and this Court directed him to file an appeal before the Competent
Authority as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called ""the Act""). He filed an
appeal on 21.7.1991 to the second respondent who is the prescribed Appellate Authority. The second respondent allowed the appeal, but without
giving opportunity to the third respondent-Management. Consequently, W.P. No. 14623 of 1991 was filed by the third respondent/Management
and it was allowed and remanded back to the second respondent. On remand the second respondent gave notice to the third
respondent/Management and allowed the appeal directing the management to reinstate the appellant on or before 17.8.1992. As against the said
direction, the third respondent had filed a civil suit, O.S. No. 690 of 1992 on the file of the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, and it was rightly
dismissed as not maintainable on 28.3.1994. In spite of all the above proceedings, the third respondent/Management did not reinstate the appellant
and consequently the appellant came up with the present writ petition seeking a direction t6 the third respondent to either reinstate him as
Secondary Grade Teacher or in the alternative to redeploy him in some other Government School by recalling the sanctioned post from the third
respondent School and alloting the same to any other needy school.
The third respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the appellant had well and truly resigned his post and he was not terminated from
service. The other facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are not however, disputed. It was further contended that the case of the appellant
would not fall within Section 23 of the Act and therefore, his appeal to the second respondent was incompetent. It was also contended that Rule
17-A introduced by G.O.Ms. No. 586, dated 2.4.1981 regarding the validity of the resignation, should have been followed. Lastly, it was
contended that the third respondent had preferred a revision petition before the Joint Director of Elementary Education and therefore, the order of
the second respondent could not be enforced.
On the above pleadings, learned single Judge who disposed of the writ petition on 8.9.1995 gave the following directions, operative portion of
which is as follows:-
The respondents are directed to ascertain as to whether any revision petition has in fact been filed by the petitioner against the order dated
6.8.1992 and if the same is pending, dispose of the same in accordance with law on merits, after due notice to the parties, If, on the other hand, no
such revision has been filed, the authorities may take action in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 1664 dated 4.9.1978 and provide for direct
payment to the teacher as also transfer the petitioner along with the post to any other needy school"".
In the present appeal, the contention is that no revision was maintainable against the order of the second respondent and in any event, there was
no revision pending before the Government of Tamil Nadu. It was further contended that the pendency of a revision petition cannot be a bar to the
implementation of the order of the second respondent.
The question to be decided in the writ appeal is whether the observation of learned single Judge relating to the revision petition is justified and
whether a revision petition is at all, pending with the appropriate authority. Even if such a revision petition is pending, could it be a bar to the
implementation of the order of the second respondent?
We have gone through the scheme of the provisions relating to the termination of the service of a teacher and the remedy available by way of
appeal or revision to the aggrieved teacher and the management. We have to determine whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
management has a right to file a revision petition under the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Before determining that question, we consider the objection based on Rule 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation)
Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as % ""the Rules"") introduced by G.O. Ms. No. 586, dated 2.4.1981. Rule 17-A of the Rules has been
inserted with an object of putting an end to the malpractices adopted by the educational agencies in forcing the teachers to resign or obtaining
undated or pre-dated resignations even at the time of appointment. Therefore, sub-rule (1) of Rule 17-A specifically provides that whenever
resignation of appointment is tendered by a teacher or other person employed in a private school, he shall inform the District Educational Officer
Inspector of Schools or the Deputy Inspector of Schools concerned, the fact of his resignation in writing by registered post with acknowledgement
due. Sub-rule (2) thereof further provides that he shall not give any undated or pre-dated resignation letter to a private school. Sub-rule (3) further
provides that no educational agency shall insist or compel any teacher or other person employed in a private school to give at any time undated or
pre-dated resignation letter. Sub-rules (4) to (6) lay down the further procedure to be followed in the event of receipt of the written information by
the District Educational Officer, Inspector of Schools or Deputy Inspector of Schools. Such a stringent procedure has been laid down only to
eliminate the malpractice that was prevalent in the private schools relating to tendering of resignation and obtaining resignation letter from the
teacher or any other person by the school agencies.
In this case, if really there was a resignation submitted by the appellant the procedure required by Rule 17-A ought to have been followed.
Therefore, rightly the case of the third respondent as to the resignation alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner/appellant, has not been
accepted by the authorities exercising power under the Act and the Rules.
It is no doubt true that Rule 17-A does not provide for any separate remedy to the teacher or other person for challenging an order of
termination based on the letter of resignation. The fact remains that in the instant case as against the refusal of the management to permit the
appellant to continue in service in the school, as he had not tendered resignation, as it amounted to ""otherwise terminated"", he filed an appeal to the
competent authority prescribed under Rule 18 of the Rules, viz., the Chief Educational Officer as the petitioner/appellant was secondary grade
teacher in the elementary school. Therefore, the appeal by the petitioner/appellant before the second respondent was perfectly maintainable and his
ultimate order dated 6.8.1992 is enforceable.
To understand the scope of the power to dismiss or remove a teacher from a private school and the remedies available to the teacher as well
as the management, the following provisions of law have to be noticed:-
Section 22 of the Act says that no teacher shall be dismissed or removed except with the prior approval of the competent authority. In this case,
we cannot forget the fact that no such prior approval was taken by the third respondent. Therefore, the aggrieved teacher has a right of appeal u/s
23 of the Act and as already stated the appeal is maintainable before the second respondent as per Rule 18 of the Rules. To complete the
narration, a teacher will also have a second appeal to the Tribunal u/s 24 of the Act if the Appellate Authority does not give him the relief. A
question may arise as to what is the remedy of the management if the competent authority had refused to accord approval to the proposal to
dismiss or remove a teacher u/s 22(1) of the Act. For this purpose, we to to Section 41 of the Act which says that any person aggrieved by any
order, decision or direction of the competent authority u/s 29 or any other provision may prefer an appeal to such authority as may be prescribed
under the Rules. Rule 29 is the corresponding Rule to Section 41 of the Act and it prescribes the appellate authority in respect of various sections
under which an order or decision could be rendered. As against Section 22 of the Act, the competent authority is the Chief Educational Officer so
far as pre-primary, primary and Middle Schools. Therefore, it follows that if the third respondent management had applied for approval u/s 22(1)
of the Act and they had suffered a prejudicial order, they could have filed an appeal u/s 41 of the Act, to the Chief Educational Officer under Rule
29 of the Rules. On the facts of this case, such a thing did not take place. No decision of any court can be divorced from the facts and
circumstances of each case which alone will enable the Court to find out the remedy by way of appeal or revision. Here and now on the facts of
the case, we would like to make it clear that the third respondent-Management had no right of appeal u/s 41 of the Act because they do not ask
for approval before terminating the services of the appellant. Lastly, the power of revision u/s 45 of the Act enables the Government to Call for and
examine the record of any authority or officer prescribed for the purpose of Section 41 in respect of any proceedings to satisfy themselves as to
the regularity of such proceedings etc., Therefore, if the third respondent had a right of appeal u/s 41 of the Act, then they might have had a power
of revision to the Government u/s 45 of the Act. The sum and substance of our analysis of the provisions of law vis-a-vis the facts of the case
clearly show that the management has no right to file a revision petition against the order of the second respondent dated 6.8.1992.
The above result can also be reached by following the judgment of this Court in R. Saravanamuthu Vs. The School Committee of Sengunthar
Higher Secondary School and Another, where the very same provisions have been analysed. But the said judgment was concerned with the
competency of an appeal before the Educational Tribunal u/s 24 of the Act and the Division Bench observed as follows:-
Consequently, on the undisputed facts of the case and on reading of Sections 23,24,41 and 45 of the Act, r/w. rule 29 of the Rules we come to
the conclusion that the second appeal preferred before the Educational Tribunal against the order passed by the Joint Director of School Education
(Higher Secondary) refusing to accord approval for termination of the services of the petitioner/appellant passed by the first respondent is not
maintainable"".
Coming back to the directions of learned single Judge in W.P. No. 14894 of 1994, the operative portion of which we have already extracted,
it follows that the reference to the existence of a revision petition has to be deleted,
In fine, we modify the order of learned single Judge and give only the following directions:-
(i) The third-respondent-Management is directed to reinstate the appellant in accordance with the order of the second respondent dated 6.8.1992
on or before 29.2.1996.
(ii) If the third respondent does not comply with the above direction, the first respondent is directed to withdraw the sanctioned post which was
held by the appellant, from the third respondent school, and allot the same to some other Government School where there is a vacancy and
appoint the appellant in such a school where there is a vacancy alongwith the post. The first respondent should undertake this exercise if the
appellant is not reinstated by the third respondent on or before 29.2.1996 and complete the exercise on or before 31.3.1996.
The writ appeal is allowed in the above manner with costs payable by the third respondent. Counsel''s fees Rs. 2,000.
In view of the orders passed in writ appeal, no further or separate order is necessary in the connected CM.P.