IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.A.No.2728 of 2001 Arul Raj ..Appellant/3rd Respondent vs. 1. Kamaraj Hindu Primary School, Karumbanoor, Thenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District, rep. By its Correspondent, V.Karuvelam. 2. The District Educational Officer, Thenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 3. The Assistant Educational Officer, Keezhapavoor Range, Pavoorchatram, Thenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ..Respondents/Petitioner & Respondent 1 & 2 Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.6387 of 1990 dated 11.04.2001 presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent relating to his order dated 23.05.1990 made in Na.Ka.No.4947 Aa 5/90 and quash the same. For Appellant : Mr.V.Selvaraj For Respondents : No Appearance for R1 M/s.Dakshayani Reddy for R2 and R3 Additional Government Pleader (Edn.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N T M.VENUGOPAL,J. The Appellant/Third Respondent has projected this writ appeal as against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11.04.2001 passed in W.P.No.6387 of 1990. 2. The learned single Judge while passing orders in the writ petition W.P.No.6387 of 1990 on 11.04.2001 has among other things observed that '......when the legislature specially requires the authorities to get themselves satisfied as to the special circumstances, such authorities are statutorily obliged to exercise their discretion complying with the principles of Natural Justice, but not detrimental to the same' and resultantly allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned order dated 23.05.1990 passed by the Second Respondent/the District Educational Officer, Thenkasi, Tirunelveli District. 3. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant/Third Respondent, the order of the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition W.P.No.6387 of 1990 is contrary to law and unsustainable and as a matter of fact, the learned single Judge ought to have seen that the First Respondent/Writ Petitioner is a school and it cannot file a writ petition and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is the Appellant/Third Respondent was not paid the salary for the month of February, March and Pongal Bonus during 1990 and in short, the writ petition should have been dismissed by the learned single Judge, but these aspects of the matter have not been looked into by the learned single Judge in a proper and real perspective and therefore prays for allowing the writ appeal in the interest of justice. 4. In the writ petition filed by the First Respondent/Petitioner, the Correspondent of the School among other things had averred that he was the Correspondent for the last 6 years and that the School was run by the Village Welfare Committee of Karumbanoor and that the Committee was registered under the Societies Registration Act bearing Registration No.10 of 1984. Further, the former President of the Welfare Committee, one Chelladurai was removed on 30.12.1989 from the President post as he was acting against the interest of the School. Also, on 30.03.1990, a new President by name V.Ramasamy Nadar acted against the school and its Management and he became enimical under the impression that he was responsible for his removal and electing a new President. 5. Continuing further, the stand of the First Respondent/Petitioner was that on 30.03.1990, one Additional Post viz., Secondary Grade Assistant was sanctioned to the school, on condition that the appointment made before 31.03.1990 and therefore he appointed Tmt.Anbarasi who was serving in their school for about https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ two years without receiving salary. Besides this, one Arulraj, the single Teacher of the school (the Appellant/Third Respondent) claiming to be the Headmaster wanted him to appoint another lady of his choice and since he could not comply with the same, the Appellant/Third Respondent joined hands with the former President Chelladurai and started sending false and frivolous complaints against the Management. 6. The plea of the Correspondent of the First Respondent/School is that he objected to the Appellant/Third Respondent taking away the Registers and records from the school in the village Ainthankattalai and further on 03.04.1990 and 08.04.1990, he addressed complaints to the third respondent/Assistant Educational Officer, Keezhapavoor Range, Pavoorchatram, Thenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District and the Appellant/Third Respondent in March 1990 received the salary by signing the Attendance Register and received the Pongal bonus on the same day and on 16.04.1990, he paid salary to the Appellant for the month of March 1990, etc., 7. That apart, the Appellant/Third Respondent preferred complaints on 24.04.1990 against the First Respondent/School's Correspondent to the Second Respondent/District Educational Officer, Thenkasi mentioning that he failed to pay his salary for the month of February and March 1990 and also the Pongal bonus which was sanctioned to him only in February 1990, etc., and upon receipt of the complaint from the Appellant/Third Respondent, the Second Respondent/District Educational Officer sent a communication to the Third Respondent/Assistant Educational Officer, Keezhapavoor, Pavoorchatram, Thenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District to send a proposal for direct payment. 8. Accordingly, during the first week of May 1990, the Third Respondent/Assistant Educational Officer sent a proposal to the Second Respondent/District Educational Officer, Thenkasi for direct payment of salary to the Appellant/Third Respondent. As Correspondent of the school on 03.04.1990 and 18.04.1990, he sent his complaint to the Third Respondent/Assistant Educational Officer, Keezhapavoor Range stating that the Appellant was keeping the Attendance and Acquittance Register and other records and refused to hand over to him and further on 10.05.1990, he sent a requisition to the District Educational Officer seeking permission to take disciplinary action against the Appellant for which no reply was received by him, etc., 9. The main grievance of the First Respondent/Petitioner School is that the reasons assigned by the Second Respondent/District Educational Officer for ordering direct payment were that the Correspondent of the School failed to prove that the salary for the month of February and March 1990 and Pongal bonus were paid to the Appellant/Third Respondent and since he failed to appear before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enquiry on 23.05.1990 and sign in the Attendance Register, he was found guilty without providing sufficient opportunity thereby violating the principles of Natural Justice. In fact, the order of the Second Respondent/District Educational Officer, Tenkasi in ordering the direct payment of salary was malafide and a motivated one. 10. In the counter of the Second Respondent/District Educational Officer, Tenkasi, it was inter alia stated that the Gramanala Committee of Karumbanoor was constituted by the Villagers of Karumbanoor on 14.12.1983 and it was a registered as a Society under the Tamil Nadu Society Registration Act bearing Registration No.10/84. Moreover, one A.Chelladurai and V.Karuvelam served as the President and the Secretary of the said Committee for a period of three years (as per bye-law of the Committee) and the said term of three years expired on 31.12.1986. The District Registrar, Tenkasi dissolved the Committee No.10/84 in the Order Ref.No.164/B3/90 dated 23.02.1990 and till date, the dissolved committee was not reconstituted and not yet revived by the District Registrar, Thenkasi. 11. It is the plea of the Second Respondent/District Educational Officer that the First Respondent's school appointed one Selvi Anbarasi on 31.03.1990 without getting the list of candidates for appointment from the Employment Exchange and before that, a Secondary Grade Teacher Post was allotted to the First Respondent/School under 'Operation Black Board Scheme' with certain conditions like that the post should be filled up on or before 31.03.1990 and moreover a female qualified teacher alone ought to be appointed besides rules and regulations of the Education Department must be followed. However, the First Respondent/School being a non- minority insitution, its salary should call for list of candidates for appointment from the Employment Exchange and the Secretary of the school had not followed the rules and regulations of the Department in regard to the appointment and therefore the appointment was not approved by the Third Respondent/Assistant Educational Officer because the said appointment was an illegal one and contrary to the rules of the Educational Department. The dispute had arisen between the President of the School Committee and the Appellant/Third Respondent (Single Teacher) and the Secretary of the School Committee only after the appointment of the Secondary Grade Teacher Anbarasi on 31.03.1990. 12. As a matter of fact, it was responsibility of the Secretary of the First Respondent's School to disburse the salary of the teacher in time but the salary of the appointment for the month of February and March 1990 and Pongal bonus which was paid by the Third Respondent/Assistant Educational Officer was not disbursed to the Appellant in time and this was the reason for making direct payment to a teacher and the said action was well within the purview of the Rules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13. The gist of the contention of the Second Respondent/District Educational Officer, Thenkasi is that the Secretaryship of the School Committee in the name of Karuvelam was approved by the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli (being the Competent Authority) with conditions that he should abide by the rules and Act of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act 1973 and Rules 1974 and since the Secretary denied the payment of salary to the teachers, he violated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act 1973 and Rules 1974 and in short, the conditions imposed by the competent Authority was not satisfied and therefore the Secretary was directed to produce Acquittance roll in support of his statement that he paid the salary. However he had not turned up and as such, the direct payment was ordered after providing an opportunity in writing and making personal enquiry. The salary due for the Appellant/Third Respondent (single teacher) is being paid directly as per Rules in force and therefore the Educational Department may be permitted to continue the direct payment till the disburse of the School Committee and the Gramanala Committee of the Karumbanoor is over and till such time, the Secretary pay the salary of the teacher and produced the Acquittance roll, for perusal. 14. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that as on date, direct payment of salary is being made to the Appellant/Third Respondent and that the Educational Agency is not incharge of the First Respondent/School and the Gramanala Committee of Karumbanoor which was constituted by villagers of Karumbanoor on 14.12.1983 and which was dissolved on 23.02.1990 as per order of the District Registrar, Thenkasi was not reconstituted and not yet revived so far and a proposal to take over the Management of the School was pending with the Government and in this regard, the District Educational Officer had sent a proposal to the Government in Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.12129/A2/03 dated 18.05.1997 stating that the First Respondent/School for the past 18 years was functioning without maintenance and therefore the School was to be converted into a Government School. 15. Apart from the above, the Third Respondent/Assistant Educational Officer had addressed a letter on 17.09.2008 to the Second Respondent/District Educational Officer, Thenkasi stating that the teachers of the school had given letters so as to facilitate them to come within the purview of Government servants. Inasmuch as the Appellant/Third Respondent was not paid the salary for the month of February and March 1990 and Pongal bonus and since there was an enmity between the Correspondent of the School and the Appellant/Third Respondent, etc., the Educational Department was right in ordering the direct payment of salary to the Appellant/Third Respondent because of the special circumstance as per Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Act 1973 read with Rule 19 Annexure III and therefore the learned single Judge was not correct in interfering with the impugned proceedings of the Second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Respondent/District Educational Officer, Tenkasi dated 23.05.1990 in ordering the direct payment of salary to the Appellant/Third Respondent and thereby allowing the writ petition without costs. 16. It is to be noted that Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act 1973 refers to the Pay and Allowances of any teacher or other person employed in a Private school shall be paid on or before such day of every month in such manner and by or through such authority, Officer or person as may be prescribed Private schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 specifies the procedure for payment of Pay and Allowances to teachers and other persons in private schools, 1) a) Pre-Primary, Primary and Middle Schools in non-Panchayat Union areas. b) Pre-Primary, Primary and Middle Schools in Panchayat Union areas. 2) High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools. 3) Special Schools and Training Institutes. 17. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on the side of the Appellant/Third Respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and noticed their contention. 18. Inasmuch as the Appellant/Third Respondent was not paid his salary for the month of February and March 1990 and Pongal bonus, though the same was paid by the Third Respondent/Assistant Educational Officer in time and because of the fact there existed a reasonable and special circumstance, the order of the Second Respondent/District Educational Officer dated 23.05.1990 in issuing direct payment of salary was well within the statutory power of the Educational Authorities and in this regard, we are of the considered view that the Second Respondent/District Educational Officer, Tenkasi had exercised discretion in a proper and sound manner which does not require to be interfered with by this Court at this stage of the appeal and we are not in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition by observing that the materials placed before the Second Respondent/District Educational Officer do not neither constitute special circumstance nor the First https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Respondent/School was provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity and viewed in that perspective, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allow the writ appeal to promote substantial cause of justice. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vri 1. The District Educational Officer, Thenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 2. The Assistant Educational Officer, Keezhapavoor Range, Pavoorchatram, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. W.A.No.2728 OF 2001 KSK (CO) GSK 19.04.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/