Madras High Court
K.Renuka vs The Director Of School Education on 27 April, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.04.2012 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.12509 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012 K.Renuka .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Director of School Education College Road Chennai 600 006 2. The Chief Educational Officer Kanchipuram 3. The District Educational Officer Kanchipuram 4. Ambalavanar Araporuppu Ayam Walajabad, Kanchipuram rep.by its Secretary 5. The Secretary/Correspondent W.T.Masilamani Mudaliar Hr.Sec.School Walajabad 631 605 .. Respondents Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned publication dated 21.4.2012 in Thina Thandhi News Paper issued by the 5th respondent - Secretary/ Correspondent W.T. Masilamani Mudaliar Higher Secondary School, Walajabad inviting eligible candidates for the interview to be held on 28.4.2012 to fill up the P.G.Assistant (Botany)and Physical Educational Teacher in the school and quash the same For Petitioner :: Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, sr.counsel for Mr.S.Giridharan For Respondents :: Mr.M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, A.G.P. For R1 to R3 Ms.G.Thilakavathi for R4 & R5 O R D E R
Heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Dig Vijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mrs.G.Thilagavathi, learned Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.
2. The petitioner taking advantage of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17527 of 2012 has come forward to file this Writ Petition challenging the notification issued by the 5th respondent-the Secretary and Correspondent, W.T.Masilamani Mudaliar Higher Secondary School calling for applications for the post of P.G.Assistant (Botany) and Physical Education Teacher. The advertisement calls for candidates to appear for interview in the School campus on 28.4.2012 with all necessary records.
3. The case of the petitioner was that she is the granddaughter of the original founder of the Trust and she must also be represented by the educational agency. This Court, in terms of the directions already issued, held that the matter relating to the dispute regarding educational agency has to be referred to a competent civil court under Section 53-A of of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.
4. It is not clear as to how any reference should be made in terms of Section 53-A of the Act. If any person claims that they have a proprietary right to be represented in the educational agency, nothing prevented them from moving the Civil Court on their own since the Supreme Court vide judgment in Samy Atmannanda and others v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and others reported in (2005) 10 SCC 51 has given an option. It has also been held that the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be held to have been ousted unless it is so, expressly or by necessary implication, stated in the statute and in terms of Section 53-A of the Act, a dispute as to educational agency is concededly required to be decided by a civil court.
5. In any event, Mrs.G.Thilagavathi, learned counsel for the School management submits that the order passed by the learned Judge is subject matter of Writ Appeal No.797 of 2012 and the Division Bench has granted interim stay. Even otherwise, it is unnecessary to go into the said issue because under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, power of appointment of a School Teacher vests with the School Committee in terms of Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. In terms of Section 18(3) of the Act, for any decision taken by the School Committee, the educational agency is bound by the same. Even assuming that any appointment is made which is contrary to the Rule, the approval has to be obtained from the authorities in terms of Section 20 of the Act. Admittedly, the School is an aided private School. Therefore, when there is inbuilt safegaurd provided under the Act, it is unnecessary for the petitioner, who has remote interest, to file this Writ Petition. Further, since the academic year starts now, the School cannot run without appropriate teaching staff. This Court do not think that any case is made out to entertain the Writ Petition. Further, it is stated by Mrs.G.Thilagavathi that so far no suit has been filed and no reference was also made by the authority.
6. Under the circumstances, there is no case made out to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
ajr To
1. The Director of School Education College Road Chennai 600 006
2. The Chief Educational Officer Kanchipuram
3. The District Educational Officer Kanchipuram