Allowed

Morning Star Centre Aided v. The Director of Elementary

Madras HC5 Sept 2018WP/8345/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an order bringing a non-minority aided school under direct payment and cancelling the petitioner's appointment as secretary. The court held the order violated principles of natural justice due to a lack of hearing, relying on precedents requiring natural justice in direct payment cases.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 12.02.2018 bringing the school under direct payment and cancelling the approval of the petitioner as secretary is quashed. Liberty granted to pass orders after hearing.

Morning Star Centre Aided Vs The Director of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.09.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.No. 8345 of 2018 in

¶6

W.M.P. No.10330 of 2018

¶7

Morning star centre Aided middle school

¶8

Rep by its secretary S.G.Suresh Prem Kumar ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Director of Elementary Education DPI Complex,

¶11

College Road, Chennai -600 006.

¶12

The District Elementary Education Officer, Vellore - 04.

¶13

The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Katpadi, Vellore- 632 007. ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka. No.1622/A2/2012 dated 12.02.2018 (received through the 3rd respondent office by post on 22.03.2018) and quash the same and consequently approve the school committee based on the proposal submitted by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka. No.277/A3/2015 dated 22.01.2016.

¶15

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. K. H. Ravikumar

¶17

For Respondents: Mr. P. Raja, Government Advocate

¶18

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 12.02.2018 and consequently approve the School Committee based on the proposal submitted by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 22.01.2016.

¶19

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

¶20

The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the writ petition, are as follows:

¶21

The petitioner school is a non minority aided school receiving grants from the Government. It is stated that the school was started in the year 1949 and at that time the school was having classes 1 to 5^th standard. In the year of 1954, the school was upgraded upto 8th standard. The petitioner's father was the founder of the said school. It is stated that after the death of the petitioner's father, his paternal uncle was managing the school affairs and there were several irregularities and mismanagement were noticed. It is admitted that the school was under direct payment because of mismanagement of the school administration by the brother of the petitioner's father.

¶22

Thereafter, based on the request of the petitioner and the report of the third respondent in his proceedings dated 28.04.2015, the petitioner requested the respondents to cancel the direct payment order and approve the appointment of the petitioner as secretary of the school. It is stated that the second respondent cancelled the direct payment order vide proceedings dated 28.04.2015, and approved the appointment of the petitioner as secretary of the school. However, this order was challenged in the year 2016 by one Mr.Sanjeevi Joseph in W.P.No.640 of 2016. In the said writ petition, this court has granted an order of status-quo. It is further stated that after lifting the order of direct payment, the petitioner constituted a School Committee on 29.08.2015 and submitted the proposals to the third respondent for approval.

¶23

It is further stated that the third respondent, in turn, forwarded the proposal on 22.01.2016 to the second respondent for approval of the School Committee and the same is pending before the second respondent. While so, it is stated that the second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 12.02.2018, bringing the petitioner school under the direct payment. In the same order, approving the petitioner as secretary of the school, was also cancelled, mainly, on the ground of pendency of the writ petition filed by one Mr. Sanjeevi Joseph in W.P.No.640/2016.

¶24

A reading of the impugned order would disclose that no proper reason has been given while passing the order to bring the petitioner school under direct payment. It is admitted that before the order of direct payment was passed, no opportunity was given to the petitioner and the petitioner was not heard before passing the order.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgement of this court in the case of the Secretary, Management to Papanasam Labour Welfare Association Higher Secondary School, Vikramasingapuram Vs. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli reported in 1998 (III) CTC 753, wherein, this Court has held

¶26

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

¶27

that by paying salary directly to the teachers, the right of employer in Managing the school is seriously affected and that such orders will have serious civil consequences. It was therefore, held that the principles of natural justice will have to be followed before passing an order, to bring the school under direct payment.

¶28

In the Judgment rendered in Jayalakshmi Vilas Middle School, Vs. Director of Elementary Education reported in (2011) 2 MLJ 100, this court has held as follows:

¶29

“A reading of the aforesaid decisions would indicate that when the educational authorities resort to direct payment, it should be done only after complying with principles of natural justice as it has certain civil consequences. In this case, except a show cause notice issued by the educational authorities and on receipt of an explanation from the petitioner, the impugned order straight away passed ordering direct payment without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Even in the impugned order, except referring to the dispute between the management and the staff, no special circumstances have been shown warranting direct payment. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is per se against the principles of natural justice and therefore it is set aside.”

¶30

Yet another Judgement in WP.5916 of 2009 [the secretary, Balakrishnavilas Aided Primary School Vs. The State of Tamilnadu], a learned single Judge of this Court has held that the decision for direct payment is an act of encroachment into the well established rights and previleges of Management of Educational Institutions and that it will have serious civil consequences. It is therefore held that the principles of natural Justice will have to be followed in such cases before passing an order.

¶31

Taking into consideration the facts and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is able to see the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 12.02.2018, bringing the petitioner school under direct payment and cancelling the approval of the petitioner as secretary of the school, is quashed. However, liberty is given to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner in case any action is

¶33

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

¶34

warranted to bring the school under direct payment . No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpl/pds
To
1. The Director of Elementary Education
DPI Complex,
College Road, Chenai 600 006.
2. The District Elementary Education Officer,
Vellore 04.
3. The Assistant Elementary Education Officer,
Katpadi, Vellore 632 007.
+1cc to Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.61334
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.61793.
W.P.No. 8345 of 2018
in
W.M.P. No.10330 of 2018
rrs 17/09/2018

¶36

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

Morning Star Centre Aided v. The Director of Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Morning Star Centre Aided v. The Director of Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivasa Charitable Trust Vs The Principal Secretary

R.Santana Krishnan, Vs The Controller of Examinations

Dr.Vyoma Tewari D/O. Shri Vs the Registrar

S.Sanjith Vs the Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R.

R.B.Ajitha, Vs the Secretary

Grt Institute of Engineering & Vs The All India council for