Partly allowed

The Correspondent v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC13 Nov 2013WP(MD)/17319/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court held that Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Act does not apply to the petitioner's minority school. While confirming the government's order for direct salary payment, the Court quashed the directive for the Headmaster to submit bills, affirming the Correspondent's statutory right to submit monthly statements.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is modified to treat it as issued under Rule 19 of the 1974 Rules. Direct payment is confirmed, but monthly bills/statements must be submitted by the Correspondent (petitioner).

The Correspondent Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.11.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶6

Writ Petition (MD)No.17319 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶7

The Correspondent, St.Mary's Middle School, Pozhikarai-629 501, Kanyakumari District.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

.vs.

¶10

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.

¶11

2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶12

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil-629 001, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,

¶14

Rajakamangalam at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District-629 001. ..Respondents

¶15

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3^rd respondent, District Elementary Educational officer, in Na.Ka.No.5415/A3/2010, dated 27.03.2013 and quashing the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Xavier Rajini For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumar, Addl.Govt.Pleader.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is the Correspondent of St.Mary's Middle School, Pozhikarai, Kanyakumari District, which is a Christian Minority Middle School. Now, the 3^rd respondent, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5415/A3/2010, dated 27.03.2013, has ordered for direct payment of salary and allowances to the Headmaster and teachers by the Department. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

¶19

2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

¶21

3.At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has got no objection for the payment being made by the Department, directly, to the Headmaster and the teachers of the School. But, his grievance is that the impugned order has been issued under the guise of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Since Section 34 of the Act deals with taking over the management of a private school, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section 34 is not applicable because of the bar contained in Section 36 of the Act.

¶22

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that so far as the submission of bills for salary and allowances of the Headmaster and the Teachers, every month, the petitioner has got right to submit the bills, as per Annexure-III to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. Thereafter, according to the learned counsel, the Department may make direct payment to the Headmaster an the teachers, for which he has got no objection.

¶23

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader would, however, stoutly oppose this petition. He would submit that since the petitioner disobeyed the orders of the Director of School Education and the District Educational Officer, the impugned order came to be passed. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that the impugned order is only an order for direct payment of salaries and allowances to the Headmaster and the teachers and in such an event, it is only for the Headmaster of the School to submit the bills for payment. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶24

6.I have considered the above submissions.

¶25

7.A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the same has been issued under Section 34 of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner's school is a minority school and, therefore, Section 34 is not applicable, in view of the bar contained in Section 36 of the Act.

¶26

8.Now turning to the direct payment ordered to be made, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has got no objection for the same. But, his only objection is that being the Correspondent of the School, the petitioner is entitled to submit monthly statement containing the details of Teachers and other persons of the school and their pay and allowances to the Department for payment.

¶27

9.A perusal of Annexure 3 (vide Rule 19) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, would go to show that it is the right as well as the duty of the Correspondent of the school to submit monthly statements containing details of the teachers and other persons and their pay and allowance, for payment. Even while making direct payment, when there is no dispute that the petitioner is the Correspondent of the School, his right cannot be deprived. Only if there is any dispute between two persons claiming to the post of Secretary or Correspondent, in such an event, in normal course, this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court itself would direct the Headmaster to submit the bills to the Department to make direct payment of pay and allowances.

¶28

¶29

10.But, here, the situation is totally different. As I have already pointed out, there is no dispute that the petitioner is the Correspondent of the School. Therefore, it is for him to submit the monthly statement containing the details of teachers and other persons and their pay and allowances for payment, as per Annexure 3 of the Rules. In such view of the matter, the impugned order, to the extent it directs the Headmaster to submit the bills alone, is liable to be set aside. Instead, it is directed that the monthly bills/statements shall be submitted only by the petitioner as the Correspondent of the School.

¶30

11.In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the

¶31

following terms:

¶32

(i)The impugned order shall be treated to have been issued under Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, for direct payment to the headmasters and the teachers and the same shall not be considered as an order made under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.

¶33

(ii)The direct payment of pay and allowances, ordered by the 3^rd respondent, to the Headmaster and the teachers of the School is hereby confirmed.

¶34

(iii)However, the bills/statements for payment of salary and allowances to the Headmaster and the teachers shall be submitted, every month, only by the petitioner, namely, the Correspondent of the School and not by the Headmaster. To that extent, the impugned order stands modified.

¶35

(iv)It is further directed that the impugned order shall not, in any manner, disturb the administration of the school by the petitioner.

¶36

No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are closed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶39

/True copy/

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

¶42

1.The Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009.

¶43

2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶44

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Nagercoil-629 001, Kanyakumari District.

¶45

4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Rajakamangalam at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District-629 001.

¶46

+1CC to M/s.Issac Mohanlal, Advocate in SR.No.55991

¶47

+1cc to the Special Government Pleader in SR.No.56061

¶48

W.P(MD)No.17319/2013 & MP(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 Dated:13.11.2013

¶49

gb https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PBK 26/11/2013 3P/7C

The Correspondent v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Correspondent v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

M.B. Basheer Mohamad, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Gunasekaran, Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

M. Raghu Krishnan, Vs the District Collector

N. Kandasamy, Vs the District Registrar

A.Davidson Tharmaraj, Vs the Chief Educational Officer

S.Dhanasekaran, Vs the Secretary to Government