p1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN W.A.(MD)Nos.790, 796 and 797 of 2008 and 12 and 312 of 2009 WA.MD.No.790/08:- 1.The Governing Council of American College, Represented by the Principal and Secretary, Dr.V.George Selvakumar, American College, Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai-02 ..Petitioner/Appellants Vs - 1.The Director of Collegiate Edcuation E.V.K.Sampath Building, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, No.30, Vaidhyanatha Iyer Street, Madurai-20 3.The Bishop and Chairman, The Governing Council of American College, American College Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai-625 002 4.Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar ..Respondents/Respondents W.A.(MD)No.796/08:- 1.Dr.V.George Selvakumar, Vice Principal(now under Suspension) American College Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai-625 002 2.M.Devamani Christopher ..Appellants/Respondent5&6 -Vs- 1.Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar ..1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, No.30, Vaidhyanatha Iyer Street, Madurai-20 4.The Governing Council of American College, Rep. By its Principal and Secretary, Dr.P.R.Anbudurai (in-charge) American Collge Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai 5.Rev.Chtistopher Asir, The Bishop, Church of South India, Madurai and Ramnad Diocese, Rachanyapuram, Moonumavadi, Madurai-625 007 6.K.Ponnusamy Enquiry Officer ..2to6 Respondents/Respondents 1 to4&7 WA.No.797/08:- 1.Rev.Christopher Asir, The Bishop Church of South India, Madurai and Ramnad Diocese, Rachanyapuram, Moonumavadi, Madurai-625 007 ..Appellant/4th Respondent -Vs- 1.Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar ..1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006 3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, No.30, Vaidhyanatha Iyer Street, Madurai-20 4.The Governing Council of American College, Rep. By its Principal and Secretary, Dr.P.R.Anbudurai (in-charge) American Collge Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai-02 5.Dr.V.George Selvakumar 6.Dr.M.Devamani Christopher 7.K.Ponnusamy, Enquiry Officer, No.115/3 Vaigai Street, Meenakshi Nagar, Madurai-18 ..2to7 Respondents/Respondents 1 to 3 & 5 to 7 W.A.No.12/09 1.The Governing Council of American College, Rep. By the Bishop and Chairman American Collge Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai-01 ..Appellant/Petitioner -Vs- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 1.The Director of Collegiate Education, E.V.K.Sampath Building, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006 2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, No.30, Vaidhyanatha Iyer Street, Madurai-20 3.Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar ..Respondents/Respondents W.A.No.312/09 Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar ..Appellant/Writ Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006 2.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-02 4.Rt.Rev.Christopher Asir, The Bishop, Church of South India, Madurai & Ramnad Diocese, Rachanyapuram, Maoonumavadi, Madurai – 625 007 5.Dr.V.George Selvakumar 6.Dr.M.Devamani Christopher 7.K.Ponnusamy ...Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the common order dated 11.12.2008 of this Court in W.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 of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the fourth respondent Bishop dated 22.9.2008 quash the same as null and void. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 Prayer in WP(MD)Nos.7844 & 9760 of 2008:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in RC.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 Counsel For Appellant in WA 312/09 and For contesting respondents in other Appeals : Mr.Issac Mohanlal For 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.Venkatesan C O M M O N JUDGMENT V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. These 5 Writ Appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Judge in 3 writ petitions, 2 of which related to the replacement of a Principal and Secretary of a college and the third related to the dismissal from service of the incumbent in the post of Principal. 2. We have heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Mr.AL.Somayaji and Mr.N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in 4 Writ Appeals and Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.312 of 2009 and also the contesting respondent in the other Writ Appeals, Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent in W.A.Nos.796 and 797 of 2008, Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the Enquiry Officer, who is the sixth and seventh respondent respectively in W.A.No.796 and 797 of 2008. 3. That it is possible at times, due to irony of fate, for an insignificant event to get flared up into a huge controversy, is amply demonstrated by the batch of cases on hand. In a nutshell, one simple leave application by the Principal of a College led to (i) the appointment of the Vice Principal in his place, (ii) the suspension followed by enquiry and dismissal of the Principal by one group, (iii) the suspension of the Vice Principal and appointment of another person as Vice Principal by the other group and (iv) the refusal of the Director of Collegiate Education to recognise the change of guard, all of which ultimately landed up before this Court in 3 writ petitions, that have now become the subject matter of these 5 writ appeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 4. Since the pleadings of parties are a mixture of chaff and grain, we have carefully segregated them and furnish herein below, only those facts which are just adequate to clinch the issues, in order to avoid a wild goose chase:- (a) A Society by name "Governing Council of the American College, Madurai" was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in June 1934 with a view to provide what is termed in the bye-laws as "a liberal Christian Higher Education". (b) As per the bye-laws, the membership of the Society comprised 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 the permanent members of the Faculty. (v) The Bishop in Madurai and Ramnad of the Church of South India (Ex-officio) (vi) One person nominated by the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council of Madurai and Ramnad. (vii) One person appointed by the Synod of Church of South India. (viii) Two persons appointed by the All India Association for 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 prescribes that the term of office for all members other than Ex-officio members shall be 2 years. Normally, the membership of any registered Society will not be for a fixed tenure though the Executive/Managing Committee of a Society may be elected for a particular term. A careful perusal of the bye-laws show that they have not been brought in tune with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, which now make it necessary for the Societies registered under the Central Act, to bring their bye-laws in tune with the State enactment of the year 1975. However, it is claimed that an exemption has now been obtained from the Government, from the application of the provisions of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act to the institution in question. (d) Before we proceed with our journey further, it is to be noted that the very name of the Society is "The Governing Council of the American College" and hence wherever the phrase Governing Council appears, in the bye-laws, it denotes the General Body and not any executive committee. (e) Under Clause V.4(b) of the bye-laws, The Governing Council (meaning the General Body thereby) has the power to appoint or terminate the services of the Principal, the Vice Principal, the Bursar, the Professors and Heads of Departments, the Chaplain and Wardens of hostels. Clause V.4(b) only reiterates what is said in Clause IV(ii) that the Principal, Vice Principal and Bursar shall be appointed by the Governing Council. ( https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 (f) Clause IV(iii) stipulates that the Principal shall be the Executive Head and Official Correspondent of the College and Secretary of the Governing Council. He is empowered to act as the Official Representative of the Council in legal and other capacities. He is entitled to make appointments to the Faculty, in consultation with the Vice Principal and Head of the Department, but the same is subject to the approval of the Council. The power to recommend the members of the Faculty to the Governing Council for their continuance, confirmation or termination also vests in the Principal under Clause IV(iii) of the bye-laws. In so far as the Non-Faculty members of the staff are 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 to perform the duties of the Principal, in the absence of or inability of the Principal. (h) In terms of the bye-laws, the General Body of the Society in question, viz., "The Governing Council of the American College" passed a resolution in its meeting held on 22.5.2006, appointing one Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, as the Principal of the College, with effect from 1.6.2006. Consequently, he also became the Official Correspondent of the College and the Secretary of the Society in terms of the bye- laws and hence the out going Principal filed Form-VI in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules 1976 with the Director of Collegiate Education. Form No.VII in terms of Rule 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 was also filed with the Registrar of Societies, relating to the change of Secretaryship. Upto this stage, there was no dispute between the parties. (i) On 14.3.2008, the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar applied for Unearned Leave on Private Affairs for the period from 9.4.2008 to 2.5.2008. Since he wanted to go abroad, the leave application was forwarded to the Director of Collegiate Education, for sanction, as the Institution is an aided minority institution. (j) However, on 8.4.2008, the Principal claims to have put up a notice in the Notice Board of the College to the effect that his tour was called off. Interestingly, the said notice contained a reference to certain “recent developments”, though it did not elaborate on the same. This notice gives sufficient indication that trouble was brewing in the Institution and was waiting to erupt. (k) On 10.4.2008, the Bishop, who is also the Chairman of the General Body, issued a letter to the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar, describing him as Principal and Secretary in-charge and expressing the hope that he had assumed charge in the place of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, in the event of the Principal going on leave on private affairs from 9.4.2008. (l) On 11.4.2008, the Director of Collegiate Education passed an order sanctioning leave to the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, with effect from 9.4.2008 to 2.5.2008. Actually, the copy of this letter bears the signature of the Superintendent of the Office of the Director of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 Collegiate Education with the date 17.4.2008 and the same is stated to have been received in the Office of the Principal of the College only on 19.4.2008. But the leave sought for, was from 9.4.2008, which means that the leave was sanctioned only after the period of leave had already commenced. (m) The letter dated 10-4-2008 given by the Bishop to Dr.V.George Selvakumar, the then Vice Principal, to take charge as Principal and Secretary in charge, led to acrimony on 12.4.2008, resulting in police complaints followed by certain untoward incidents, in which the Guru kshetra (abode of teachers) became kurukshetra (battle field). Therefore on the very same day viz., 12.4.2008, the Principal Dr. T.Chinnaraj Joseph 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 Bishop directed to function as Principal in-charge, convened a meeting of the General Council on 19.4.2008, with a claim that he was the Secretary of the Society by virtue of being the Principal in-charge. In the said meeting held on 19.4.2008, two resolutions were passed (i) placing Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, the Principal under suspension and (ii) appointing Dr.V.George Selvakumar as Principal and Secretary in-charge. (o) The very authority of Dr.V.George Selvakumar, to convene the meeting of the General Council on 19.4.2008, became the subject matter of controversy. Adding to the agony, the very membership 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 to his seat as the Principal, on the basis that the resolution dated 19.4.2008 was invalid. Per contra, Dr.V.George Selvakumar attempted to take over as the Principal and Secretary in-charge on the strength of the resolution dated 19.4.2008. (q) What followed were a spate of complaints, counter complaints, an enquiry by the RDO, peace committee meetings, a writ petition for police protection, an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C., a Criminal Revision Petition on the file of this Court etc. Since these events are not necessary for our present purpose and also since they are better forgotten as a bad dream in the history of the college, we wish not to record them here. (r) Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, who continued to stake a claim as the Principal and Secretary, convened a meeting of the General Council on 28.5.2008. That Council passed certain resolutions, including a resolution (i) accepting new members to the Society (ii) ratifying the suspension of Dr.V.George Selvakumar passed by the Principal on 12.4.2008 and (iii) appointing Dr.P.R.Anbudurai as the Vice Principal in the place of Dr.V.George Selvakumar and Mr.C.Premkumar Immanuel as Bursar in the place of Dr.M.Devamani Christopher. (s) In a parallel move, the Bishop issued a charge memo dated 17.6.2008 to Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar (Principal of the College). At the same time, Dr.V.George Selvakumar (the Vice Principal nominated as Principal in-charge) filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5460 of 2008, challenging the very selection of 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/ 8 20.6.2008. (t) However, on the basis of the nomination of Dr.V.George Selvakumar, as Principal and Secretary in-charge by the Bishop, a Form in Form No.VI was filed by the Bishop with the Director of Collegiate Education, under Rule 9 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, on 24.7.2008. Simultaneously, the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar also informed the Director of Collegiate Education about the suspension of Dr.V.George Selvakumar. (u) On the request of the Bishop to record the change of Secretaryship from Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to Dr.V.George Selvakumar and on the counter request of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to take note of the suspension of Dr.V.George Selvakumar, the Director of Collegiate Education, passed an order dated 14.8.2008. By this order, the Director of Collegiate Education did two things viz., (i) set aside the suspension of Dr.V.George Selvakumar by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar and (ii) set aside the removal of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar as Principal and Secretary. In other words, the effect of this order of the Director of Collegiate Education was that Dr.V.George Selvakumar was to be reinstated as Vice Principal and Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar was to continue as Principal and Secretary. (v) Challenging the said order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008, the Governing Council represented by the Bishop filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7844 of 2008. Interestingly, the Governing Council represented by Dr.V.George Selvakumar also filed a writ petition against the same order dated 14.8.2008 of the Director of Collegiate Education in W.P.No.9760 of 2008. (w) In the meantime, the Bishop and Chairman appointed an Enquiry Officer and had an enquiry conducted ex parte against Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, which culminated in an order of dismissal from service dated 22.9.2008. Challenging his dismissal from service, Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9401 of 2008. Thus, there arose 3 writ petitions. 5. All the 3 writ petitions (2 challenging the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008 and one filed by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, challenging his dismissal from service) were taken up together for disposal by the learned Judge. A preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the Principal, was raised by the Governing Council on the ground that the institution is a minority institution and its right to appoint or terminate a Principal, cannot be questioned. The learned Judge overruled the objection and held the writ petition filed by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar as maintainable, since it is an aided institution. 6. In the writ petition W.P.No.9401 of 2008 filed by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, challenging his dismissal from service, primarily three contentions were raised viz., (i) that the entire disciplinary proceedings were without jurisdiction, as the membership of those who attended the meeting of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9 General Council on 22.9.2008, was questionable; (ii) that there were violations of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry; and (iii) that two persons who deposed in the enquiry as witnesses on the side of the Management, were also members of the Governing Council that passed the resolution dated 22.9.2008 and hence the proceedings were vitiated by bias. 7. The learned Judge rejected the first ground of attack on the ground that several disputed questions of fact about who constituted the Governing Council that met on 22.9.2008, whether they were actually the members of the Governing Council etc., have arisen and that the same cannot be decided in a writ petition. The second ground of attack viz., the violation of principles of natural justice, was also rejected by the learned Judge on the ground that the then Principal failed to participate in the proceedings and that he had not established any prejudice due to the non-observance of the principles of natural justice. 8. However, the learned Judge accepted the third ground of attack that there was a deep rooted bias on the part of the Governing Council, in view of the rival claims and clashes by two groups and also in view of the fact that two witnesses participated in the deliberations of the Governing Council on 22.9.2008. Therefore the learned Judge held that the resolution dated 22.9.2008 deserved to be set aside. However, since it was not clear to the learned Judge as to who constituted the Governing Council, the learned Judge felt that the matter could not also be remitted back to the Governing Council for proceeding from the stage at which the irregularity crept in. Therefore, the learned Judge ultimately stopped with a mere declaration that the resolution dated 22.9.2008 was bad in law and left the choice to the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to approach the civil court for consequential reliefs and to participate in the proceedings, if initiated afresh, by the same set of people who claimed to constitute the Governing Council. 9. After declaring the resolution dated 22.9.2008, dismissing the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, to be illegal, the learned Judge proceeded to consider the findings of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women, which enquired into certain untoward incidents that happened in the College, when both groups clashed with each other. Though the report of the Commission was not the subject matter of any of the three writ petitions and though the happenings in the campus, which led to the order under Section 145 Cr.P.C., were not the issues raised in the writ petitions, the learned Judge took note of the report of 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 person appointed as Vice Principal, by the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar should continue to act as the Principal/ Secretary of the College and the Joint Director of Collegiate Education should monitor the administration and issue suitable advises to him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10 (b) The District Collector and Commissioner of Police should provide adequate security. (c) Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, the Bishop and Dr.V.George Selvakumar should approach the Civil Court to get the disputes relating to the validity of the disciplinary proceedings resolved. (d) The continuance of Dr.P.R.Anbudurai as Principal in-charge, would be till a Civil Court grants any interim order or final order and till such time, Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, the Bishop, Dr.V.George Selvakumar and the Bursar Dr.M.Davamani Christopher should not interfere in the administration. (e) The salary of the teaching and non- teaching staff should be paid directly by the Director of Collegiate Education. (f) No opinion is expressed on the validity of the resolution dated 19.4.2008, by which Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar was suspended. No finding is also recorded whether the disciplinary proceedings leading to the dismissal order of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, are valid or not. However, the resolution dated 22.9.2008 dismissing Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar is declared as bad in law, on the ground of bias. 10. After disposing of W.P.No.9401 of 2008, filed by the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, on the above lines, the learned Judge took up W.P.No.7844 of 2008, filed by the Governing Council represented by Bishop and Chairman. It may be recalled that this writ petition was against the order of the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 14.8.2008, by which the Director rejected the request of the Bishop to take note of the resolution dated 19.4.2008 and the change of Principalship and Secretaryship from Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to Dr.V.George Selvakumar. The learned Judge dismissed this writ petition on the technical ground that under Clause IV(iii)(b) of the bye- laws, it is only the Principal/Secretary who is empowered to act as the official representative of the Council in legal and other capacities. Therefore, the learned Judge held that the Bishop was not competent to institute the writ petition on behalf of the Governing Council, in the absence of at least a special resolution, by the General Council, authorising him to do so. 11. After disposing of W.P.No.9401 of 2008 with the directions extracted in paragraph-9 above and after dismissing W.P.No.7844 of 2008, the learned Judge took up W.P.No.9760 of 2008, filed by the Governing Council with Dr.V.George Selvakumar representing himself as the Principal and Secretary in-charge. This writ petition was also against the Director's order dated 14.8.2008. Even in this writ petition, the question of maintainability of the writ by Dr.V.George Selvakumar was raised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11 by the contesting respondents. The learned Judge found that the very appointment of Dr.V.George Selvakumar as Principal and Secretary in-charge became highly contentious, especially in the light of his suspension, by the Principal, by an order dated 12.4.2008 and its subsequent ratification by the Governing Council on 28.5.2008. Therefore the learned Judge held in paragraph-109 of his judgment that the writ cannot be held to be maintainable. But at the same time, the learned Judge held that the order of the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 14.8.2008, was without jurisdiction, as the College in question is an aided minority institution, which was not obliged to get approval for suspending a person and appointing someone else in his place. Therefore, even while holding the writ to be not maintainable, the learned Judge held the order of the Director to be illegal and quashed the same. 12. The ultimate effect of the order passed by the learned Judge in all the three writ petitions, could be summarised as follows:- (a) That the resolution of the Governing Council dated 22.9.2008 dismissing Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar is bad in law; (b) However, the consequences that flow out of the above declaration regarding the resolution dated 22.9.2008 are to be worked out in a civil court, since the learned Judge felt that without being able to arrive at a finding about who are the members and who constituted the Governing Council, it was not even possible to allow the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to proceed from the stage at which the irregularities crept it; (c) The question as to who are the members of the Governing Council was left open to be agitated by the parties before the appropriate Civil Court; (d) Till such time, the Civil Court decides any such question and passes an interim or final order, Dr.P.R.Anbudurai, the person appointed as Vice Principal by the then Principal