Madras High Court
A.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 November, 2012
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26 / 11 / 2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.NO.20466 OF 2012
AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2012
A.Ramalingam ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Education Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education
DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Joint Director of Higher Secondary Education
Chennai 600 005.
4.The Chief Educational Officer
Panagal Building,
Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
5.The District Educational Officer
Egmore, Chennai South,
Chennai 600 005.
6.The Secretary / The Correspondent
Kesari Higher Secondary School
No.8, Thiyagaraya Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 5 to 6 to permit the petitioner to continue in service till the end of the academic year superannuation i.e. upto 31.05.2013 in the 6th respondent school with all consequential monetary and other service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar
For Respondents 1-5 : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent 6 : Mr.K.S.V. Prasad
O R D E R
The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner, a P.G. Assistant in English, in the sixth respondent Higher Secondary School, is entitled to continue on re-employment, after his retirement on 31.07.2012, upto the end of the academic year viz. 31.05.2013.
2.The petitioner joined the sixth respondent school on 18.02.1982. He rendered more than 30 years service as P.G. Assistant. He attained the age of superannuation on 10.07.2012. He sought re-employment to continue in the teaching assignment till the end of the academic year viz. 31.05.2013, based on the Government Orders.
3.The sixth respondent filed counter affidavit. The crux of the averments made in the counter affidavit is that the conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory and therefore, he is not entitled to continue upto the end of the academic year, as per the Government Orders.
4.Heard the submissions made on either side.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the senior most P.G. Assistant in the sixth respondent school. When he was overlooked and the school appointed one Thiru S.Jayaraj as Headmaster, he questioned the same and the same was not appreciated by the sixth respondent school. In view of the said litigation, the Headmaster was also not in good terms with the petitioner. When Thiru S.Jayaraj retired from service on 31.05.2012, one Headmaster (in-charge) was appointed by the sixth respondent and the Headmaster (in-charge) is the junior-most person in B.T. Assistant cadre and not even a P.G. Assistant was appointed. In the past 30 years, the work of the petitioner was very good and there was almost no failures in English subject at the Higher Secondary level. The petitioner also questioned the misdeeds of the Headmaster, when the District Educational Officer found that the Headmaster involved in collecting huge amounts without receipts, in his proceedings dated Nil.02.2009. It was also submitted that the school is under direct payment system due to some irregularities committed by the school management for more than 8 years. The petitioner also questioned the illegality in the selection process of Teachers. These are all the reasons for not continuing him in service after his superannuation on 31.07.2012. According to him, since there was no disciplinary proceedings pending him and no charge memo was issued as on 31.07.2012, the sixth respondent school ought to have continued him in service.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.1780 of 2012 and 8619 of 2012 seeking direction to take action against the erring Headmaster based on the report of the District Educational Officer. Those writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 04.07.2012 on the ground that the school was not made as a party and the petitioner is taking steps to file writ appeal.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.SUNDARAM VS. THE SECRETARY, C.S.I. DIOCESE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS [W.A.Nos.1179 of 1993 etc. batch decided on 06.09.1994]. The SLP preferred against the same was also dismissed. The said judgment was followed by many Division Benches and also Single Judges. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments of this Court:
(i) C.DAVID THAMPI DHAS VS. THE GOVERNING BOARD OF N.M. CHRISTIAN COLLEGE ETC. AND OTHERS [1996 WRIT L.R. 259]
(ii) CORRESPONDENT, SECRETARY AND MANAGING TRUSTEE, SALEM VS. M.RAJAGOPALAN AND OTHERS [2008 (1) MLJ 312]
(iii) D.SIRONMANI JOSEPHINE VS. THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS [W.P.(MD) NO.11497 OF 2009 11.11.2009]
8.On the other hand, the sixth respondent, who appeared in person, vehemently contended based on the detailed counter affidavit and the documents filed in support of the averments. The sixth respondent has submitted that the request of the petitioner dated 26.07.2012 for extension of service was rejected by the school by an order dated 31.07.2012 giving reasons for not continuing him in service. According to him, the reasons that are adduced in the letter dated 31.07.2012 of the school would make it clear that extension was declined due to un-satisfactory conduct of the petitioner. According to him, the conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory, as disclosed in the counter affidavit read with the documents produced by him. He has relied on the following judgments of this Court in support of his contention:
(i) S.SUNDARAM AND OTHERS VS. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHEYYAR AND ANOTHER [CDJ 1993 MHC 798]
(ii) B.SELVARAJ AND ANOTHER VS. THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS [CDJ 2006 MHC 1936]
(iii) S.EKAMBARAM VS. THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS [CDJ 2007 MHC 660]
9.The learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that the sixth respondent school did not send any proposal seeking extension of service for the petitioner. He has submitted that the school is under direct payment system. He has also submitted that the School did not send any communication to the Department regarding any allegations on the petitioner. The Department was not informed about the pendency of any disciplinary proceedings against him. The Department has no objection for extension of service, if this Court comes to the conclusion that he is entitled to continue in service.
10.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
11.The Government issued various orders to provide re-employment to the Teachers, who retire in the middle of the academic year and to continue them till the end of the academic year, particularly for the benefit of students, that the students could be benefited without interruption in teaching. Those Government Orders are as follows:
(i) G.O.Ms.No.249 dated 09.02.1969
(ii) G.O.Ms.No.452 dated 24.03.1970
(iii) G.O.Ms.No.2529 dated 18.11.1981
(iv) G.O.Ms.No.1643 dated 27.10.1988 The re-employment until the end of the academic year is not absolute. The Government Orders prescribed the following conditions for re-employment:-
(i) The work and conduct of the Teacher shall be satisfactory.
(ii) The Teacher shall be physically found fit for further service.
(iii) No disciplinary proceedings are pending against the Teacher.
12.The sixth respondent School has not complained about the work of the petitioner, at any point of time. The allegation is relating to the conduct of the petitioner. According to the sixth respondent, the conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory.
13.The physical fitness of the petitioner is not under issue. Likewise, there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner as on 31.07.2012.
14.Therefore, the whole issue is as to whether the sixth respondent is correct in not providing re-employment to the petitioner on the ground that the conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory. The sixth respondent passed an order dated 31.07.2012 refusing to extend the service of the petitioner and the correctness of the same has to be tested. The contents of the order dated 31.07.2012 of the sixth respondent is extracted hereunder:
"The management declines to extend your services beyond 31.07.2012 the date of your retirement.
In fact, the management wanted to initiate disciplinary action against you for your acts of disobedience and misconduct during the last 2/3 years.
You had, inter alia:-
(a) Written a letter dated 20.07.2010 to the then Headmaster Mr.S.Jeyaraj in which you made baseless and false allegations against the Headmaster that he had collected fees without issuing receipts, stating that we (the school) are at fault and wanted the presence of journalists and police at the AGM of the PTA to be held soon thereafter.
(b) On 30.09.2010, you stopped and spoke to Mrs.Shanthi, the Computer Teacher, telling her to inform the Headmaster and Correspondent to give promotion to the present teachers, otherwise you would bring out the corruption of about Rs.10 Lakhs in the school (which never existed) and on 06.09.2010 you threatened her again.
(c) You wrote a letter dated 23.11.2010 to the DEO South, complaining against the process of selection for appointment of teachers in vacant posts in the schools managed by The Kesari Education Society (a linguistic minority Society). The memo dated 20.12.2010 of the management, you evaded giving proper explanation.
(d) While the selection process was going on in the Correspondent room in the Primary School building, you went there and shouted at Mr.T.Sarath Chandra Rao, the then Administrative Officer, the members of the selection Committee and the candidates.
(e) You wrote a letter dated 21.11.2011 to the Secretary, Education (filed by you as part of typed set in W.P.No.1780 of 2012) stating that you apprehended that the Headmaster Mr.S.Jeyaraj used influence to get you assignment of Government exam duty with intention to expose you to rowdy or antisocial elements etc.
(f) During the years 2009 to 2012, you have been advising the students not to pay any fees to the school misinforming them inter alia, that the entire school fees would be abolished by the government, which resulted in loss of several lakhs to the management.
(g) On 24.02.2012, you wrote a letter to the CEO-Chennai, again stating that you needed protection from police etc.
(h) During April, May 2012, you were assigned exam duty by the government. But you wrote a leave letter and sent it DEO, directly and not through the Headmaster, without any Medical Certificate, even though you had exhausted all the medical leave to your credit and did not have any leave. There are dues payable by you to the government.
All these letters of yours contain baseless falsehoods and these acts constitute misconduct Mr.N.Gopalaiah, the present Headmaster in charge, pleaded on your behalf, not to take action as you might face dismissal, in case the charges against you are proved, and wanted you to leave the institution quietly and practise the professions of teaching or legal.
Even Mr.S.Jeyaraj, the previous Headmaster, whom you had harassed for over a decade, was prepared to forgive and forget. The management also, decided to collect as much as possible, the school fees that was to be paid by students, who would have paid, but for your wrong advice.
Under these circumstances, the management which is contemplating appropriate disciplinary action against you, cannot and will not extend your services. Your service in our school comes to an end at the closing hours of the day for the school today.
You are hereby called upon to tender an unconditional apology in writing for your misdeed, pay the dues to the government and produce the receipt, to enable the management to issue the relieving order."
15.In fact, the counter affidavit of the sixth respondent is almost the reproduction of the order dated 31.07.2012. The order dated 31.07.2012 of the sixth respondent contains 7 reasons.
16.The first reason for declining extension of service is that the petitioner wrote a letter dated 20.07.2010 to the then Headmaster S.Jayaraj making baseless and false allegations against him that he collected fees without receipts. The school was at fault in regard to the same and therefore, he wanted the presence of journalists and police at the AGM of the Parents Teachers Association.
17.The proceedings dated Nil.02.2009 of the District Educational Officer, South Madras, Chennai, is placed before this Court. Paras 3, 6(1), 6(2) and 7 of the said proceedings are very much relevant and the same are extracted hereunder:
"3.,e;epiyapy; nkw;go gs;spapy; gs;spj; jiyik Mrphpauhy;/ tpjpKiwfSf;F Kuzhf fl;lz';fs; tR{y; bra;ag;gLfpwJ vdg; g[fhh; bgwg;gl;lijaLj;J/ ,g;gs;spapy; 30.07.2009 md;W khtl;lf; fy;tp mYtyuhy; neuoahfr; brd;W jiyik Mrphpah;/ Mrphpah;fs; mYtyfg; gzpahsh;fs; kw;Wk; khzt - khztpah;fsplk; tprhuiz nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;L/ Kjw;fl;l tprhuiz mwpf;if gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh; mth;fSf;F/ ghh;it 2-y; fhz; ,t;tYtyff; fojk; thapyhfg; gzpe;jDg;gg;gl;L/ mjd;go/ ghh;it 3-y; fhDk; gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh; mth;fsJ bray;Kiwfspd;go/ jiyik Mrphpah; tpsf;fKk; nfhhpg; bgwg;gl;lJ. 30.07.2009 md;W gs;spapy; tprhuiz elj;jpanghJ khzth;fsplk; tpjpKiwfis kPwp kpf mjpfkhf bjhif tR{y; bra;ag;gl;lJ cz;ik vd;gJld;/ mjw;fhd ,urPJfSk;/ khzt/ khztpaUf;F tH';fg;gltpy;iy vd;gJk; mwpag;gl;lJ. ,jidaLj;J/ mj;bjhifapid gs;sp khzt/ khztpahplk; cld; jpUk;g mspf;fg;gl ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;/ ,dp tU';fhyj;jpy; ,t;thW bjhif vJt[k; khzth;fsplk; tR{y; bra;ag;glf;TlhJ vdt[k;/ jiyik Mrphpahplk; mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;lJ vdg; gzpe;J bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;.
6(1) ,g;gs;spf;fhd Special Fees murplkpUe;J bgwg;gl;L mj;bjhif +.18991/- f;fhd fhnrhiy vz;.821297 ehs; 02.12.2009-d;go 04.12.2009 md;W tH';;fg;gl;L tpl;lJ. ,j;bjhiff;fhd tut[ bryt[f; fzf;Ffs; kw;Wk; ve;j t';fpapy; fzf;F guhkhpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ Fwpj;j tptu';fSk; jiyik Mrphpauhy; bjhptpf;fg;gltpy;iy.
6(2) ,g;gs;spapy; gapYk; khzth;fsplk; 30.07.2009 kw;Wk; 22.02.2010 Mfpa ehl;fspy; tprhuiz bra;J vGj;J \ykhf bgwg;gl;l mwpf;ifapd;go/ +.3/96/650/- khzth;fsplk; tR{y; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vdj; bjhpatUfpwJ. ,t;thW bgw;Wf; bfhs;sg;gl;l bjhiff;F/ ,urPJ vJt[k; khzth;fSf;F tH';fg;gltpy;iy. ,U khzth;fs; kl;Lnk gy Kiw nfl;L ,urPJ bgw;Wf; bfhz;ljhfj; bjhptpj;Js;sdh;. khzth;fsplk; tR{y; bra;j bjhifapy;/ gapw;rpg; g[j;jf';fs;/ njh;t[j;jhs;/ gapw;rp VLfs; nghd;witf;fhd fl;lzk; nghf kPjKs;s gzk; khzth;fSf;F Vw;fdnt jpUg;gpaspf;fg;gl;lJ vdj; jiyik Mrphpauhy;/ md;dhuJ 04.12.2009 ehspl;l mwpf;ifapy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;oUg;gpDk;/ mjid midj;J khzth;fSk; kWj;Js;sdh;. khzth;fSf;F ve;jbthU bjhifa[k; jpUk;g tH';fg;gltpy;iy vd;gJ Ch;$pjkhfpwJ.
7. nkw;Twpa[s;s R{H;epiyapy; brd;id-17/ jp.efh;./ nfrhp nky;epiyg;gs;spj; jiyik MrphpauJ bray;ghLfs;/ tpjpfSf;Fg; g[wk;ghf cs;sjhy;/ md;dhh; kPJ eltof;if vLf;fg;gl ntz;oa mtrpak; vGe;Js;sJ. ,g;gs;spapy; gs;sp eph;thff; FGtpy; Vw;gl;l gpur;rid fhuzkhf gs;spf;F neuo khd;a Kiw mKy;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;s gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Feh; mth;fsJ bray;Kiw Mizfspd;go/ gs;spg; gzpahsh;fSf;fhd Cjpak;/ Cjpa cah;t[/ Kd; gz';fs; mDkjpj;jy;/ tpLg;g[ Xa;t{jpak; nghd;w thyhakhdit kl;Lnk mDkjpf;f khtl;lf; fy;tp mYtyUf;F mjpfhuk; tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ. gs;spg; gzpahsh;fs; kPJ xG';F eltof;if nkw;bfhs;snth/ mj;jpahtrpa epfH;t[fspy; jw;fhypfg; gzp ePf;fk; bra;anth tHptif ,y;iy."
18.In view of the said proceedings of the District Educational Officer, I do not find any merit in the allegations made by the sixth respondent school regarding the letter dated 20.07.2010 written by the petitioner, which was based on the report of the District Educational Officer.
19.In fact, in page 8 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Headmaster S.Jayaraj made an appeal to the Director against the report of the District Educational Officer and the same is still pending consideration by the higher authorities. In this regard, the relevant paras in the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
"iv) The said S.Jeyaraj, the previous Headmaster, had given his representation against the said report to the Director of School Education, the 2nd Respondent herein, with copies sent to the 3rd and 4th Respondents herein. On 27.02.2012, he received a phone call from the then 4th Respondent (since transferred) who asked him what it was about. After hearing him briefly, the 4th Respondent promised to look into the Appeal / Representation and give him a reasonable opportunity to present his full explanation, the facts and records and report to the 2nd Respondent. Thus his Appeal/Representation dated 20.02.2012 (Doc.No.9) against the said Report dated 25.02.2010 of the DEO, (South) is under consideration, by the Higher authorities."
20.The second reason is that the petitioner spoke to one Ms.Shanthi, Computer Teacher, on 30.09.2010, telling her to inform the Headmaster and Correspondent to give promotion to the Teachers, otherwise he would bring about the corruption of about Rs.10 Lakhs in the school.
21.There is no mention about the same in the counter affidavit. There is also no complaint from Ms.Shanthi, Computer Teacher, regarding the same. Furthermore, there was no charge sheet issued to the petitioner in this regard. Had the petitioner threatened the Computer Teacher Ms.Shanthi as alleged therein and also abused the school that the school indulged in corruption, the management of the school, certainly could have issued a charge sheet to the petitioner. Therefore, the same cannot be relied on by the school to deny the petitioner the extension, particularly when the petitioner was pursuing with the report of the District Educational Officer, making serious allegations on the Headmaster.
22.The third reason is about the letter dated 23.11.2010 written by the petitioner to the District Educational Officer complaining about the process of selection for appointment of Teachers in vacant posts in the schools managed by the Kesari Education Society and the memo dated 20.12.2010 given by the school in this regard.
23.I am not able to understand as to how the school finds fault with the Teacher, if the Teacher writes a letter to the educational authorities complaining against the process of selection of teachers alleging that some illegality is committed in the selection process. The contents of the memo dated 20.12.2010 as enclosed in the typed set is extracted hereunder:
"You have been working as a teacher (P.G. Assistant) of English in the school run by our Society.
You have been writing letters containing false complaints against the management of the school to the Educational Authorities.
The latest letter that had come to the notice of the management is the letter dated 23.11.2010 sent to the DEO South (intimated to the Headmaster by the DEO-South) complaining against the process of selection and / or appointment of teachers.
This is an act, prejudicial to the interests of the school interfering with the management and administration of the schools and the smooth conduct of process of selection and appointment of the best candidate as teacher in our schools.
This amounts to a serious act of misconduct.
You are hereby called upon to furnish a copy of your said letter and also give an explanation as to why appropriate action should not be taken against you for your misconduct, within 48 hours failing which appropriate action will be taken against you for your misconduct."
The whole letter is about the complaint made by the petitioner to the educational authorities. After 1- = years, no further proceeding was initiated and no charge sheet was given, based on the memo, though the memo states that appropriate action would be taken within 48 hours.
24.The fourth reason was that the petitioner went to the primary school building where the selection process was going on and he shouted at T.Sarath Chandra Rao, the then Administrative Officer and the members of the selection committee and the candidates.
25.The allegation has no basis since nothing is mentioned in the memo dated 20.12.2010. If the petitioner shouted at the officers and other committee members of the Management, the then Administrative Officer and the members of the selection committee, the sixth respondent school could have incorporated the same in the memo dated 20.12.2010. In fact, the memo was only complaining against the letter of the petitioner dated 23.11.2010 sent to the District Educational Officer complaining about the selection process in the recruitment of teachers by the school. The memo itself was given after the complaint of the petitioner to the educational authorities. If the petitioner misbehaved with the selection committee, at the time of selection process, I am failed to understand, as to why the school did not take any disciplinary action against the petitioner in this regard. As stated above, the allegation does not find place in the memo dated 20.12.2010 also. Therefore, these allegations also deserve to be rejected.
26.The next allegation is relating to the letter dated 21.11.2011 of the petitioner addressed to the Secretary, Education Department, apprehending some threat from the Headmaster.
27.The petitioner challenged the appointment of the Headmaster overlooking him to the post of Headmaster. Thereafter, he also complained against the Headmaster based on the report of the District Educational Officer. Both are inimical towards each other. In these circumstances, he wrote the letter dated 21.11.2011. In any event, it is also relevant that the school did not choose to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner based on the said letter. Now, the same cannot be relied on to deny re-employment.
28.The fifth reason as adduced in the impugned order is that during the years 2009 to 2012, the petitioner advised the students not to pay any fees to the school misinforming them that the entire school fees would be abolished by the government and the same caused loss to the Management. Here again, there was no charge sheet issued to the petitioner, in this regard. The allegations are serious. It is alleged that he misinformed the students and advised them not to pay fees, which resulted in the loss of several lakhs to the Management.
29.The allegation is that the petitioner was advising the students from 2009. It is not known as to why the school did not issue any charge sheet and did not initiate any disciplinary action at any point of time.
30.Para 7 of the counter affidavit reveals that there was confusion in collection of fees and the school wrote letters to the Department asking them to clarify about collection of fees. The said para in the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
"iii) When the DEO came on the surprise visit for enquiry, which is mentioned in the Writ Affidavit, the then Headmaster, S.Jeyaraj, had been given the impression that her enquiry was in respect of collection of tuition fees from students of English Medium against the oral advice of the officials of the education department not to collect the tuition fees due to the expected change in the policy of the government. But our school is run by a linguistic minority Society and I as its Secretary who is also the Correspondent of the school, wrote letters (Doc.No.8) to the Department asking them for clarifications and informing the department that fees would be initially collected and if the department so directs, it would be refunded to the students. But there was no such official direction or guidance from the Education Department. However, in this process, there was a confusion resulting in a slight delay in the collection of fees and depositing it in the bank and remittance to the Government. In addition, there was an omission of many students to pay the fees, at the instigation of the petitioner, who spread a rumor that the entire fees would be waved and told the students not to pay the fees. The then DEO (S) had not conducted a proper enquiry. The report allegedly given by her is neither correct nor proper."
31.It is worthwhile to extract the appeal made by the Headmaster against the proceedings of the District Educational Officer finding fault with him in collecting fees without receipts, which reads as under:
"I learnt later, that though this visit was unannounced, a few teachers Mr.A.Ramalingam, P.G.Asst., and few others, were aware of the impending visit, that these teachers prepared the students to reply to DEO (South) according to Mr.A.Ramalingam's directions and that those students, without having even time to think, answered the DEO (South) as per the directions of Mr.A.Ramalingam and his friends."
32.The aforesaid paras show that the Headmaster made allegations not only against the petitioner, but also against other teachers about the collection of fees by the school contrary to the circular issued by the Education Department. The letter dated 10.06.2009 that was written by the school to the Chief Educational Officer, Chennai, also makes it clear that the school authorities issued direction not to collect certain fees from the students.
33.In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the school is not correct in putting blame on the petitioner, particularly when the school itself was under confusion about the collection of fees and there was also circular from the Education Department not to collect special fees.
34.The last reason is about the leave taken by the petitioner, when he was assigned exam duty. The District Educational Officer has sanctioned leave. According to the school, he had only five days medical leave to his credit, but he took ten days, and therefore, he has to pay the dues payable to the Government. In my view, the same cannot be the reason for refusing re-employment. Therefore, the order dated 31.07.2012 refusing to extend the service of the petitioner upto the end of the academic year viz. 31.05.2013 is bad and illegal.
35.An attempt is made by the sixth respondent stating that class test was conducted on 24.07.2012 for Tenth standard and on 25.07.2012 for Twelfth standard and the papers are not handed over by the petitioner. He has relied on the letter dated 14.09.2012 written by the Headmaster to the Correspondent. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has replied stating that the petitioner was prevented from entering the school from 31.07.2012 and he was not issued any notice in this regard, I am of the view that the said submission has no merit. It is not pleaded in the counter affidavit and also, no charge memo is given in this regard.
36.The judgments relied on by the sixth respondent in this regard are of no use. The sixth respondent relied on the judgment of this Court in S.SUNDARAM AND OTHERS VS. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHEYYAR [CDJ 1993 MHC 798] and has submitted that the Government Orders granting the benefit of extension of service to Teachers cannot be applied to minority institutions. The said judgment was reversed by a Division Bench of this Court in S.SUNDARAM VS. THE SECRETARY, C.S.I. DIOCESE OF MADRAS, MADRAS AND OTHERS [W.A.Nos.1179 of 1993 etc. batch decided on 06.09.1994] and the SLP preferred against the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Hence, the submission of the sixth respondent is rejected.
37.The judgment of this Court in S.EKAMBARAM VS. THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER [CDJ 2007 MHC 660] relied on by the sixth respondent also is of no use. In that case, the learned Judge found that the conduct and character of the Teacher was not satisfactory. The learned Judge also found that a charge memo was issued and the Teacher also admitted all the charges levelled against him in his explanation and requested permission from the school to retire peacefully. One of the allegations was that the Teacher gave more marks to the students who gave wrong answers at their request. Disciplinary proceedings was admittedly pending against him. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, since I have recorded a finding that the conduct of the petitioner cannot be said to be non-satisfactory.
38.The other judgment of this Court in B.SELVARAJ AND ANOTHER VS. THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS [CDJ 2006 MHC 1936 W.P.Nos.20276 and 20274 of 2006] also is of no assistance to the sixth respondent. In W.P.No.20273 of 2006, a show cause notice was issued against the teacher stating that he collected money illegally from 8th standard students for various reasons and the teacher also accepted the collection of money and later, returned the same to the students. The admission was in writing. The teacher was awarded 8 days suspension as punishment. In W.P.No.20274 of 2006, the teacher gave a false community certificate. Disciplinary action was initiated against him and enquiry was pending regarding the same. Pursuant to the charge memo issued, an explanation was received. The teacher was also found guilty of his involvement in gainful business during the course of service. He was also found guilty of altering the attendance register by overwriting his signature on the writings of C.L. The teacher confessed that he altered the attendance register and he was pardoned on his admission. In the said circumstances, the learned Judge found that the conduct of the teachers was not satisfactory and dismissed those writ petitions. Thus, the said judgment is of no use to the sixth respondent.
39.On the other hand, the judgments of this Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in (i) C.DAVID THAMPI DHAS VS. THE GOVERNING BOARD OF N.M. CHRISTIAN COLLEGE ETC. AND OTHERS [1996 WRIT L.R. 259], (ii) CORRESPONDENT, SECRETARY AND MANAGING TRUSTEE, SALEM VS. M.RAJAGOPALAN AND OTHERS [2008 (1) MLJ 312], (iii)D.SIRONMANI JOSEPHINE VS. THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS [W.P.(MD) NO.11497 OF 2009 11.11.2009] followed the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in S.SUNDARAM VS. THE SECRETARY, C.S.I. DIOCESE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS [W.A.Nos.1179 of 1993 etc. batch decided on 06.09.1994].
40.In this regard, paras 2, 3.1 of the judgment in CORRESPONDENT, SECRETARY AND MANAGING TRUSTEE, SALEM VS. M.RAJAGOPALAN AND OTHERS [2008 (1) MLJ 312] are extracted hereunder:
"2.The right to continue on re-employment till the end of academic year conferred on the teachers working in the schools either Government or private, both minority or non-minority, has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1179 of 1993 S.Sundaram V. Secretary, C.S.I. Diocese of Madras, and the SLP preferred against the same was also dismissed. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court has been consecutively followed by this Court in R.Muthukrishnan v. Secretary, Aided Middle School, Korranattu, Karupur, Kumbakonam and the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tanjavur, vide 1998 WLR 77.
3.1. In S.Sundaram v. Secretary, C.S.I. Diocese of Madras (supra), where the teacher was not permitted to avail the benefit of re-employment after his superannuation, the Division Bench directed the management and authorities to pay monetary benefits in terms of salary payable to him till the end of the academic year."
41.A Division Bench of this Court in S.SUNDARAM VS. THE SECRETARY, C.S.I. DIOCESE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS [W.A.Nos.1179 of 1993 etc. batch decided on 06.09.1994] held that the purpose of the Government Orders is to provide extension of service to the teachers, who retire in the middle of the academic year, upto the end of the academic year and the same is for the benefit of students and hence, the same cannot be deprived in an arbitrary manner.
42.In this case, I am of the view that the petitioner was deprived extension in an arbitrary manner. The order dated 31.07.2012 of the sixth respondent refusing extension of service is based on various letters written by the petitioner to the educational authorities complaining certain activities of the Management. For making complaints to the educational authorities, a Teacher, who rendered more than 30 years of service, cannot be deprived of his benefit of extension of service. The action of the sixth respondent in not granting extension of service is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
43.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the sixth respondent to provide re-employment to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The sixth respondent is further directed to pay wages to the petitioner from 01.08.2012 till the petitioner is given re-employment. On providing re-employment, the wages shall be paid by the concerned educational authorities till 31.05.2013. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26 / 11 / 2012 Index : Yes Internet : Yes Note : Issue order copy on 27.11.2012 TK D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
TK To
1.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Education Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director of School Education DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Joint Director of Higher Secondary Education Chennai 600 005.
4.The Chief Educational Officer Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
5.The District Educational Officer Egmore, Chennai South, Chennai 600 005.
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN W.P.NO.20466 OF 2012 26 / 11 / 2012