IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-01-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.13045 of 2006 Sri.T.Sanjeeva Rao .. Petitioner. Versus 1.Director of School Education, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 2.Madras Christian College Higher Secondary Schoo, rep. by its Headmaster, 46, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai-1. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in respect of the order, dated 23.9.2005, issued by the second respondent and direct the first respondent to issue proper directions to the second respondent for constitution of a proper school committee under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (Act 29 of 1974). For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali Government Advocate Mr.Sanjay Mohan for M/s.Ramasubramaniam Associates O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the order, dated 23.9.2005, issued by the second respondent and to direct the first respondent to issue proper directions to the second respondent for constitution of a proper school committee, under Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The petitioner has stated that he has been working, as a Senior Teacher in the second respondent school, from 20.6.1983. He has been incharge of the Department of Telugu language. As such, he has been imparting education to the students of the higher secondary classes and thus, he is classified as a P.G. Teacher. 3. It has been stated that the headmaster of the second respondent school has been acting in a mala fide manner, in trying to upgrade teachers belonging to Christian religion. He has been foisting false charges on non-christian teachers, based on the improper legal advice given by the law member, S.W.Kanagaraj. Based on such false charges, actions have been initiated against various persons, contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. Since, the second respondent school is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the Rules framed thereunder, as well as the directions issued by the various Government orders, including G.O.Ms.No.1966, Education, dated 29.11.1974, as such the second respondent School cannot terminate the petitioner from service, without following the procedures prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the rules framed thereunder. Even though the second respondent school is a private minority school, it is Government aided and therefore, it has to abide by all the rules and regulations and the Government orders applicable to its administration. 4. The head master and correspondent of the second respondent school had issued a show cause notice, dated 17.11.2004, making certain allegations against the petitioner and asking him to submit his explanation for the charges alleged. On 5.2.2005, an enquiry notice had been issued to the petitioner, by S.W.Kanagaraj, Member, Board of Directors, Madras Christian College Higher Secondary School, stating that, since the petitioner had failed to offer an explanation to the show cause notice issued to him, the management of the second respondent School had decided to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner, with regard to the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, by a communication, dated 3.3.2005, issued by the Headmaster and Correspondent of the second respondent School, the petitioner had been informed that one J.Thilagaraj, Advocate, had been nominated as the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner. Thereafter, by an order, dated 23.9.2005, the petitioner had been removed from service from the post of Post Graduate Assistant, with immediate effect, without following the procedures established by law, as well as the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 23.9.2005, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it has been stated that the second respondent school is a minority institution receiving aid from the state funds. As such, it is governed by the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools Rules (Payment of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Grant), 1977. However, the various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the rules framed thereunder, are not directly applicable in its administration and governance. It has also been stated that it is not mandatory for the second respondent school to obtain prior sanction and approval for the removal/dismissal of those who are employed by the school. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that since the petitioner, who was a Telugu P.G. Assistant was having only minimum number of periods for taking Telugu classes, he was allotted substitution work during some of his free periods. However, the petitioner had refused to sign the substitution work, amounting to insubordination. Further, the petitioner had not been attending the school assembly to maintain the discipline of the students, during the assembly. The petitioner had also refused to sign the acquittance register from the month of February, 2002, despite the fact that he had been receiving his salary, regularly. Since, the petitioner was setting a bad example for the other teachers, by his insubordination, charges had been levelled against him and an enquiry had been conducted. The petitioner had refused to attend the enquiry. Since, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was unsatisfactory he was removed from service, by an order, dated 23.9.2005, issued by the second respondent. 7. Mr.Sanjay Mohan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had submitted that the second respondent School is a minority aided school and therefore, it is not bound by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the Rules framed thereunder, as held by the First Bench of this Court, in its order, dated 19.4.2007, in Writ Appeal No.621 of 2007 (T.Nagarajan Vs. The Director of School Education and three others). Therefore, the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, with regard to the charges levelled against him cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Charges had been framed against the petitioner and after due notice having been issued to him, an enquiry had been conducted. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer the petitioner had been asked to submit an explanation. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, he was removed from service, by the impugned order, dated 23.9.2005, issued by the second respondent. 8. Since, the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions of the appointment order, it is not open to him to approach this Court, by way of a writ petition filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 23.9.2005. As the petitioner is bound by the agreement entered into at the time of his appointment he could avail the remedies provided for under the said agreement. Since the necessary principles of natural justice had been followed by the second respondent before the passing of the impugned order, dated 23.9.2005, removing the petitioner from service, the said order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 23.9.2005. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the rules framed thereunder, are applicable to the case of the petitioner, as claimed by him. Further, it is clear from the decision of the First Bench of this Court, cited supra, that such rules and regulations could not be applicable to minority aided institutions. As such, it cannot be said that the management of the second respondent School had violated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the Rules framed thereunder, in passing the order, dated 23.9.2005, removing the petitioner from service. Further, it is seen that certain charges had been levelled against the petitioner, with regard to the various instances of insubordination said to have been committed by him. Thereafter, an enquiry notice had been issued, on 5.2.2005 and a communication, dated 3.3.2005, had been sent regarding the appointment of the enquiry officer. However, the petitioner had not availed the opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry, by participating in the said enquiry. Thereafter, since the explanation submitted by the petitioner, on 29.9.2005, was not satisfactory he was removed from service by the order, dated 23.9.2005. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order, dated 23.9.2005, issued by the second respondent, is illegal and void. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. csh Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Director of School Education, DPI, College Road, Chennai-6. + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.3614 + 1 cc to Mr. S. Ramasubramanian & Associates SR No.3198 + 1 cc to Mr. R. Subramanian, Advocate SR No.3359 BKY(CO) SR/28.1.2010 W.P.No.13045 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/