Madras High Court
A.Ramalingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 July, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.07.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.Nos.1780 and 8619 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 A.Ramalingam ... Petitioner in both WPs Vs. 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.S.Jeyaraj ... Respondents 1 to 5 in both WPs 6.The Additional Director General of Police, CBCID Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai. ... 6th Respondent in W.P.No.1780/2012 W.P.No.1780 of 2012 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to order for investigation by the 6th respondent into the complaint of the fees collected by the 5th respondent based on the petitioner's complaint dated 21.12.2011. W.P.No.8619 of 2012 preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the 5th respondent on the basis of the report submitted by the District Education Officer, Chennai South dated 25.02.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar For Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi,AGP for R1 to R4 and R6 Mr.P.Subhadra Devi for R5 O R D E R
These writ petitions came to be posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 22.06.2012.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Both the writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner, who is working as Post Graduate Teacher in the school in which the contesting 5th respondent is the Head Master. The said school viz., Kesari Higher Secondary School is a linguistic minority approved by the Department.
4. In the first writ petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to the first respondent State Government to conduct an investigation in the conduct of the 5th respondent, who is the Headmaster of the school based on his complaint dated 21.12.2011 relating to fees collecting by the 5th respondent.
5. When the said writ petition came up for admission on 27.01.2012, on behalf of the official respondents, the learned Government Advocate took notice. On notice from this Court, the contesting respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 19.03.2012.
6. Even during the pendency of the first writ petition, the petitioner has filed the second writ petition more or less with identical prayer viz., for a direction to the official respondents to take action against the Headmaster of the school on the basis of the report of the District Educational Officer, Chennai South dated 25.02.2010. When that writ petition came up on 02.04.2012, this Court ordered notice of motion. Pending notice of motion, the prayer sought for in the applications for direction were not granted. On notice from this Court, the contesting respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit dated 02.07.2012.
7. The grievance of the petitioner as reflected in the representation sent by him dated 21.12.2011 was that the 5th respondent was collecting fees without receipts. Further, one Pugazhendi, former District Education Officer, (DEO) South Chennai came to the school and dictated a letter by way of explanation as if the petitioner was collecting fees from the students under a false complaint. It is also seen from the records that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition in the year 2008 seeking for grant of Police Protection for attending examination duty as there was allegedly embittered legal battle between him and the Headmaster, an outsider. Therefore, he sought for police protection from his residence to the place of examination duty and back to his residence.
8. The allegations made by the petitioner was denied by the 5th respondent in the detailed counter affidavit filed by him dated 19.03.2012. It was stated by him that he had reached the age of superannuation on 31.03.2012 and he had been given extension of service till 31.05.2012 which date is already completed. It was further stated that the enquiry conducted by the DEO, South regarding collection of money for computer education nothing adverse found against him. The petitioner once again filed a complaint to the Chief Educational Officer, Chennai against the DEO (South) alleging that she had taken bribe and did not conduct the enquiry properly and once again she was asked to come to the school. But that time she had not conducted a proper enquiry. In his absence, statements were obtained from the students and without showing the statements, she had submitted the report. Further, one Deputy Superintendent of Police attached to the Directorate of Anti Corruption and Vigilance also came to the school, verified the accounts, spoke to students, went to our bank and verified the amounts deposited and went away and no action was initiated thereafter. The petitioner made false complaints to the Education Department. The Management aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioner had also called for explanation from him. He is yet to submit his explanation and there were also other delinquencies which requires action against the petitioner. It was stated that the allegations made by the petitioner were without basis.
9. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the the 5th respondent, it was stated that he had already retired from the service of the school and one N.Gopalaiah, was appointed as Headmaster in charge and he had taken charge from the 5th respondent. The Management is also intending to call for applications from suitable candidates for appointment to the post of Headmaster. The said Gopalaiah is managing the academic affairs of the school.
10. In the light of these assertions and denials, it has to be seen whether the writ petitions are liable to be entertained by this Court.
11. The first controversy is the impleaded contesting 5th respondent is only the Headmaster of the school at the relevant time and the Management of the school run by the educational agency has not been made as a party. The agency has to be heard in such matters. The petitioner cannot de hors the educational agency make allegations against the Headmaster and seek for an action against him. As noted already, the school is admittedly a liguistic minority and the power of appointment of a Headmaster vest with the management. The Headmaster has to function under the guidelines and supervision of the educational agency. Therefore, in the absence of the Management being a party to the writ petitions, the petitioner's writ petitions are not maintainable. Secondly, the allegations made by the petitioner has been squarely denied by the contesting respondent. Therefore, the question of petitioner seeking for certain outside authority to take action against him is clearly unwarranted which is coupled with the fact that the contesting respondent had already retired from service and a new person had taken charge.
12. Under the said circumstances, the writ petitions are misconceived and bereft of legal reasons. Hence, both writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.07.2012 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No svki To
1.The Secretary to Government, The State 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 Additional Director General of Police, CBCID Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai.
K.CHANDRU,J.
svki W.P.Nos.1780 and 8619 of 2012 04.07.2012