Dismissed

Syed Jamal, v. the Joint Director of School

Madras HC5 Apr 2011WP/26867/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeks quashing of a 1998 termination order and reinstatement. Court dismisses petition,holding minority schools exempt from prior approval norms and dismissing the plea due to laches for filing a writ 13 years later without explanation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Syed Jamal, Vs the Joint Director of School — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.04.2011

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

¶5

W.P.No.26867 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶6

Syed Jamal .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The Joint Director of School
Education (Personnel)
College Road, DMS Compound
Chennai 6
2. The District Educational Officer
Tirupattur
3. The Correspondent
Osmania Higher Secondary School
No.6, Rajan Street
Tirupattur 635 601
Vellore District .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 3^rd respondent made in R.C.No.413/C/98 dated 27.4.1998, to quash the same as invalid since and pursuant to the 2nd respondent's communication in Na.Ka.No.4444/A4/2010 dated 28.8.2010 and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits arising thereto.

¶9

For Petitioner :: Mr.L.Chandrakumar

¶10

The petitioner was employed as a Record Clerk in the 3^rd respondent School. The 3^rd respondent is admittedly a minority Institution covered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973 as well as the Rules framed thereunder, insofar as it applies to the minority run schools. The petitioner in this Writ Petition has come forward to challenge an order dated

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

27.4.1998 terminating the services of the petitioner on grounds of misconduct.

¶13

The case of the petitioner was that the termination order is invalid. Though he was terminated as early as April 1998, he did not challenge the same in the manner known to law. However, he sent a representation on 28.7.2010 to the Information Officer attached to the office of the District Educational Officer, Tirupattur asking for certain details. Pursuant to his query, the office of the 3^rd respondent informed the petitioner that if a minority school dispenses a Teacher, the endorsement of the District Educational Officer has to be obtained in the Service Record and as per the Fundamental Rules, 50% of the salary should be paid for the first 6 months and thereafter it is 75%. In the case of dismissal by a School Management even a minority School, which avails the State aid has to get endorsement by the District Educational Officer under the Service Rules. With reference to question No.7, it was informed that an Aided Minority School has to get approval from the District Educational Officer for terminating the service of the Teacher. After armed himself with this information obtained, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to set aside the order of termination, which was passed 13 years ago. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, no specific explanation has been furnished for availing the remedy after 13 years.

¶14

On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent District Educational Officer has filed a counter affidavit dated 'nil' (2011). In paragraphs 3 to 6, the 2nd respondent stated that since the 3^rd respondent is a minority School, they cannot interfere with the administrative decision taken by them and they cannot intervene the action taken by the School management.

¶15

On behalf of the 3^rd respondent, a counter affidavit dated 29.3.2011 has been filed. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was charge sheeted on account of certain misappropriation of the funds of the School and an enquiry was conducted. A show cause notice was given. The enquiry itself was conducted by a Committee and the petitioner had participated in the enquiry. He also admitted the charges before the management in writing. He also confessed that he was an addict to alcohol and because of that, he has committed misconduct. The School management after due deliberation with reference to the recommendation by the Committee terminated the service of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. It is not clear as to how the petitioner can head over the right and move this court after 13 years. The information furnished by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the petitioner's query made only during July 2010 does not advance the case of the petitioner any further. In fact, the information furnished by the 2nd respondent only shows their poor knowledge on the legal issues involved.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

First of all, suspension of a non-teaching staff in Minority School can be made only for a period of two months by the management and thereafter with the approval by the competent authority by another two months. The rate of subsistence allowance to be paid is provided under Rule 17(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. Therefore, the 2nd respondent relying upon the Fundamental Rules with reference to the rate of subsistence allowance and calculating the same for 6 months and one year does not arise in the light of Section 22(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. Further, any consolidated advice of getting prior approval from the competent authority as provided under Section 22(1) of the Act has been exempted in respect of minority Institutions by a Division Bench judgment of this Court. Though the State had filed an appeal, the same has been subsequently remanded by a fresh disposal of this Court and the decision is yet to be rendered by this Court. However, the Supreme Court ordered that status quo as on date shall continue, which only means that as per the earlier Division Bench judgment, Section 22(1) of the Act will not apply to the case of Minority Institutions either now or at the time of termination of the petitioner.

¶18

In the light of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petitioner is not only guilty of laches but the petitioner has not even denied about his acceptance of the charges and the enquiry being held by the 3^rd respondent management in this regard. The Writ Petition is misconceived and bereft of legal reasons. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar

¶20

ajr To 1. The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel) College Road, DMS Compound Chennai 6

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

The District Educational Officer Tirupattur

¶23

1 cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate, Sr.No.23949

¶24

1 cc to Mr.Zaffarullah Khan, Advocate, Sr.No.24331

¶25

1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.24156

¶26

W.P.No.26867 of 2010

¶27

RS {CO}
TP/12.4.2011.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Syed Jamal, v. the Joint Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Jamal, v. the Joint Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tmt.K.P.Ranganayagi Vs the Director of Elementary

G.Srinivasan Vs the Chairperson, Adjudicating

T.Athimuthu, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Kodanad Estate, Vs the Principal Secretary to the

A.Subramaniam Vs the Drugs Inspector

M/S.Sontex Rolled Bandage Vs the Managing Director