IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:30.9.2008 CORAM; THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.NOs.17878 OF 2001 and 15494 of 2008, W.P.M.P.No.1088 of 2008 in W.P.No.17878 of 2001, and M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.15494 of 2008 W.P.No.17878 of 2001 Jayakrishna Aided Primary School rep. by its Secretary Tmt.S.Mohanarani Eachavari Valayapatti Post Namakkal Taluk & District ..Petitioner vs 1.Joint Director of Elementary Education Chennai 6 2.District Elementary Educational Officer Namakkal Namakkal District 3.A.Palanichamy Secondary Grade Teacher Jayakrishna Aided Primary School Eachavari, Valayapatti Post Namakkal Taluk & District ..Respondents W.P.No.15494 of 2008 A.Palanichamy ..Petitioner vs. 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer Namakkal Namakkal District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Secretary Jayakrishna Aided Primary School Eachavari, Valayapatti Post Namakkal Taluk & District ..Respondents Writ Petition No.17878/2001 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the 1st respondent in his Proceedings Mu.Mu.No.12028/Thoka.J.3/2001 dated 19-7-2001 confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.1324/A4/97 dated 17-10-2000 and quash the same and direct the respondent 2 to consider and pass orders on the approval Petition submitted by the Petitioner School dated 1.12.1998 on merits. Writ Petition No.15494/2008 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in her proceedings No.Nil, dated 24.06.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reappointment the petitioner in the 2nd respondent school for the period from 01.07.2008 to 31.05.2009. for petitioner in W.P.No.17878/2001 :Mr.T.Sellapandian for petitioner in W.P.No.15494/2008 and for R3 in W.P.No.17878/2001 :Mr.C.Prakasam for respondent No.2 in W.P.No.15494/2008 :Mr.R.Subramaniam for respondent Nos.1 & 2 in W.P.No.17878/2001 and for respondent No.1 in W.P.No.15494 of 2008 :Mr.K.H.Ravikumar G.A.(Edn.,) COMMON ORDER The third respondent in W.P.No.17878/2001 is the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.15494/2008. The said third respondent was appointed as a teacher in the petitioner school in W.P.No.17878/2001, namely, Jayakrishna Aided Primary School, Eachavari, Valayapatti Post, Namakkal District. In 1984, some charges appeared to have been framed against the third respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ based on which the petitioner management wanted to terminate his services after conducting enquiry. In the meantime, the third respondent got promoted himself as Headmaster in the petitioner school which is an aided school governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act and the rules made thereunder. Based on the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner appeared to have approached the second respondent seeking permission to dismiss the 3rd respondent from service. The said permission was not granted, however the management was directed to take a lenient view instead of terminating the third respondent from service. It was, under those circumstances, the third respondent who became Headmaster was reverted to the post of teacher. It appears that as against the said order the third respondent has approached this Court in W.P.No.10798/1997 which came to be dismissed on 13.6.1994 stating that there is no illegality in the reversion of the third respondent as a teacher. Thereafter, a fresh charge memo has been issued against the third respondent on 30.12.1994 and based on the enquiry again the petitioner management wanted to terminate the petitioner from service as per order dated 6.2.1995 and approached the second respondent for approval. The second respondent by order dated 7.10.2000 has rejected the approval or request stating that already in respect of the same charges the third respondent was demoted from the post of Headmaster to the post of teacher. As against the rejection order of the second respondent dated 7.10.2000, the appeal filed before the first respondent-Joint Director of Elementary Education also came to be dismissed on 19.7.2001 for the same reason. 2. In the meantime, the 3rd respondent has continued as a teacher in the petitioner’s school and he has attained the age of superannuation on 14.6.2008. Since it was in the middle of the academic year He claimed that he has got a right to continue till the end of the next academic year, namely, March 2009. The 3rd respondent has made a request to the second respondent which was rejected by the second respondent in the order dated 24.6.2008, which is challenged in W.P.No.15494/2008. In the said order dated 24.6.2008 the second respondent rejected the claim of the 3rd respondent on the ground that he is involved in various other misconducts and in fact he is also facing disciplinary proceedings. It is also stated in the said order that even earlier due to his misconduct he was demoted from the post of Headmaster to that of teacher and therefore, it is not possible to have him till the end of the academic year. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.No.15494 of 2008, on instructions would submit that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 14.6.2008 and after that, his period was not extended by the management and that the petitioner is not pressing the said writ petition since he is not interested in extending his service under the management. 4. The said statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.15494/2008, Mr.C.Prakasam is recorded. 5. In view of the said statement by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no further order is required in W.P.No.15494 of 2008. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.15494/2008 stands dismissed. 6. Insofar as W.P.No.17878/2001 is concerned, inasmuch as the educational authorities have rejected the proposal of the management to terminate the services on the basis that the earlier charges framed against the 3rd respondent in 1984 and the present charges framed against him in 1994 are almost same and therefore, such permission for termination cannot be granted requires to be seriously considered. Under these circumstances, the parties were directed to file the documents to show as to the nature of the previous charges as well as present charges against which a termination proposal has been given by the management. 7. The learned Government Advocate has produced the records to show the previous charges and the present charges. 8. A reading of those charges makes it clear that the charges are shown as vague in nature and not specific and also relating to some aspect that the teacher has not been co-operating with the management in conducting the classes and that he is involving in making complaints to the authorities against the management. However, under the second charge memo there is one doubt about the involvement of the teacher in civil and criminal cases. It was under those circumstances, the learned Government Advocate was directed to produce the records to show the nature of the civil and criminal cases in which the third respondent is stated to have involved. 9. On production of the records by the learned Government Advocate, it is clear that the civil and criminal cases which are stated to have been involved by the petitioner are relating to his personal matter, not connected with his duty as a teacher and that the charge is since the third respondent is involved in civil and criminal cases, he is not able to concentrate on the work as a teacher in the writ petitioner school. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. In view of the said fact that the involvement in civil and criminal cases is only new charge in 1994, later, it has been explained by the learned Government Advocate, there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the charges in the earlier cases as well as present case are one and the same and therefore, the impugned order passed by the educational authorities in refusing to grant permission to terminate the services of the third respondent cannot be said to be either illegal or irregular. Moreover, as stated earlier, the 3rd respondent who got demoted from the post of Headmaster as that of a teacher has also completed as teacher on 14.6.2008 and he has given his willingness not to continue as teacher till the end of the next academic year and in such circumstances considering the nature of charges both in 1984 and 1994 which are not very serious, but as I Have stated earlier are vague in nature, especially, relating to the conduct of the 3rd respondent in making representation against the petitioner management, I am of the considered view that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.17878/2007 is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition inasmuch as the impugned order of the educational authorities are not illegal. 11. In view of the same, W.P.No.17878/2001 stands dismissed. 12. No costs. Consequently, connected pending miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sal Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Joint Director of Elementary Education Chennai 6 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer Namakkal Namakkal District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ + 1 cc to Mr. S. Mani, Advocate SR No. 56649 + 1 cc to Mr. C. Prakasam, Advocate SR No. 56501 1 cc to Government Pleader SR No. 56624 RSM(CO) SR/15.10.2008 W.P.NOs.17878 OF 2001 and 15494 of 2008, W.P.M.P.No.1088 of 2008 in W.P.No.17878 of 2001, and M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.15494 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/