Madras High Court
A. Karunanidhi vs The Secretary And Correspondent, ... on 21 September, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1995)1MLJ25
Author: Shivaraj Patil
Bench: Shivaraj Patil
ORDER Shivaraj Patil, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the file of the respondent pertaining to the proceedings in reference Na.Ka. No. 65/B1/94, quash the order dated 28.6.1994 and consequently direct the respondent to continue the petitioner in service till 31.5.1995.
2. The facts briefly stated leading to this writ petition are the following:
The petitioner was denied the right of re-employment till the end of the academic year, i. e. 31.5.1995 contrary to the provisions of law. Poompuhar College, Melaiyur, Negai Quaide Millet District is a private college within the meaning of Section 2(8) of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short refer to 'the Act'). The said college is run by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (H.R. & C.E.). As per Section 11 of the Act, the administration of the college vests with the College Committee. The said committee consists of the Principal, two senior lecturers, a representative from the Bharathidasan University to which the said college is affiliated. There are three nominees of H.R. & C.E. Department.
3. The petitioner joined service as tutor on 20.6.1966 in Tamil Department. He became lecturer in the year 1967 and professor in 1974. In 1991, he was made Principal-in-Charge. From the year 1992, he had been holding the post of Principal on a regular basis.
4. The Government by G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education, dated 13.2.1981 fixed the age of retirement of teacher as 58 years for the assessment of grant and if any teacher has to retire in the middle of the academic year, he would be permitted to continue till the end of the academic year. The purpose of the said G.O. appears to be that due to sudden retirement of teachers in the middle of the academic year the standard and quality of education should not suffer besides the interest of the students also should not be affected. According to Section 2(1) of the Act, "academic year" means, the year commencing on the 1st day of June.
5. The petitioner completed 58 years as on 13.6.1994, i.e., after the commencing of the academic year 1994-95. As such, he was. eligible to continue in service till 31.5.1995. He gave representation in that regard to continue his service till 31.5.1995. This subject was although placed in the College Committee Meeting on 20.6.1994, no decision was taken. However, at the adjourned meeting held on 27.6.1994, in violation of the G.O., dated 13.2.1981 mentioned above, the petitioner is denied the right of re-employment and some other teacher was nominated as Principal-in-Charge. It appears two Teacher Members of the Committee had protested against the denial of re-employment of the service of the petitioner as per the G.O. The University nominee had sent telegram to grant extension to the petitioner. However, by the order dated 28.6.1994, the respondent retired the petitioner from service with effect from 30.6.1994. Under circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The writ petition was admitted on 8.7.1994. On the same day, interim injunction was granted in W.M.P. No. 17635 of 1994.
6. Thiru K. Chandru, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the college is a private college within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the Act. Having regard to the Sections 10,11,14,17 and 24 of the Act and the rules framed under the said Act, the respondent College was bound by G.O.Ms. No. 281, dated 13.2.1981. The resolution of the College Committee dated 27.6.1994 to retire the petitioner from services is untenable. The resolution or decision of the College Committee running contrary to the provisions of the Act and the said G.O. issued by the Government, exercising powers under Section 19 of the Act cannot be sustained. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Madras Christian College represented by its Secretary v. Director of Collegiate Education, Madras, 1993 Writ L.R. 45, Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. .
7. In the aforementioned case of Madras Christian College, this Court in para. 10 has stated thus:
Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', deals with payment of grant to educational institutions. Sub-section (2) of the said section enables the Government to with hold permanently or for any specified period the whole or part of any grant referred to in Sub-section (1) in respect of any private college on certain conditions. Clause (iii) of Sub-section (2) provides that if any private colleges contravenes or fails to comply with any conditions as may be prescribed by the Government then the letter is entitled to withhold permanently or for any specified period the whole or any part of the grant, Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 for short 'the Rules' framed under the Act relates to payment of grant. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 provides for withholding of grant by the Government if any of the conditions specified in that subrule or directions or orders issued by the Government or the Director or his Subordinate Officers, from time to time are contrvened or not complied with by the educational institution. Clauses (c) and (d) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 as follows:
(c) The educational agency shall carry out the instructions issued by the Government or by the Director with a view to maintain academic standards and to safeguard the interests of the teachers and the students;
(d) The educational agency shall fulfil all the conditions stipulated, at the time of according permission to establish the college.
Under Clause (c) above the educational agency is bound to carry out the instructions issued by the Government or, by the Director with a view to maintain the academic standards and to safeguard the interests of the teachers and the students. By G.O. No. 1286, Education, dated 22.6.1976 the Government authorised under Section 47 of the Act, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education as such officer to exercise the powers of the Government specified in Section 10 of the Act. Thus, the first respondent is the officer concerned who could exercise the powers under Section 10 and consequently under Rule 7(3) of the Rules.
In the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. , the Supreme Court has held that private aided recognised educational institutions would be governed by the rules and regulations framed by Government in matters of admission and fee as well as other matters. Hence recruitment and conditions of service etc. of teachers and staff. Under Section 17 of the Act, the Government has power to frame Rules relating to various matters including the service conditions of teachers and even as to age of retirement of teachers and other persons employed in any private college.
8. Mr. P.M. Bhaskaran, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the petitioner was retired from service on the basis of the decision of the College Committee taken on 27.6.1994; the petitioner was Principal and not a teacher. As such the said G.O.Ms. No. 281, dated 13.2.1991 does not apply to him and when the petitioner has been already retired with effect from 30.6.1994. The question of continuing him in service does not arise and that the petitioner has not come to the court on clean hands inasmuch as he has suppressed the material facts, viz. that he was retired with effect from 30.6.1994 and obtained the interim injunction on 8.7.1994 without disclosing the fact of retirement. On these grounds, he submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed. 9. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the Poompuhar College, Melaiyur, Nagai-Qm. District is a private college to which the Act applies. G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education, dated 13.2.1981 issued by the Government exercising powers under Section 10 read with 17 of the Act, is in force and validity of it is not questioned. The decision of Madras Christian College represented by its Secretary v. Director of Collegiate Education, Madras, 1993 Writ L.R. 45, aforementioned supports the contention of the petitioner that the Government Orders or instructions are binding on the private colleges, receiving grant or aid. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was retired pursuant to the decision of the College Committee dated 27.6.1994 and as such he cannot be continued in service. The said decision of College Committee cannot nullify or take away the effect of the said G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education, dated 13.2.1981 issued under the Act. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the guidelines given by the Director, formalities were not completed in sending particulars of the petitioner. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot be blamed for that as he had made representation to continue in service upto 31.5.1995. If the College Committee has not taken steps and allowed the time to pass and then takes decision to retire him from service, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of re-employment till the end of the academic year, as per the said G.O. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner being a Principal, is not a teacher because Principal has also got teaching assignment. It cannot be ignored that the petitioner joined the college as Tutor, later became Lecturer and then Professor. Looking to various other provisions of the Act, the Principal cannot be excluded and denied the benefit of G.O. in regard to re-employment till the end of the academic year. As to the last submission, the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and filed the writ petition in that he filed the writ petition on 6.7.1994 and obtained interim injunction on 8.7.1994. If the respondent has retired or relieved the petitioner, without the knowledge of the petitioner and the case of the petitioner is one for re-employment or continuation of the service in the college till the end of the academic year. Under circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has suppressed any material fact, which entails dismissal of the writ petition on that ground. When W.M.P. No. 17635 of 1994 came up for orders on 10.8.1994, this Court passed the following order:
Though this Court granted an interim order on 8.7.1994 restraining the respondent from retiring the petitioner till the end of the academic year, it is now represented on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner was actually retired on 30.6.1994, a week prior to the interim order. Without going into the controversy whether the petitioner had been relieved earlier to the interim order has become infructuous or not, I direct the writ petition to be posted for final disposal at the top of the list on 23.8.1994 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the writ petition can be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts. On the other hand, it is clear that the petitioner is denied re-employment in violation of the G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education, dated 13.2.1981 which is not in the interest of the college, students and the academic standard to be maintained. Added to this: the Division Bench of this Court in S. Sundaram v. The Secretary, C.S.I. Diocese of Madras and 10 others, W.A. Nos. 1179,1242 and 1243 of 1993 and 132 of 1994 and W.P. No. 14226 of 1993 disposed of on 6.9.1994 also strengthens the case of the petitioner. For the reasons stated and discussion made above, the writ petitioner is entitled to succeed.
10. In the result, for the reasons stated, I pass the following order:
(i) The writ petition is allowed,
(ii) The impugned order dated 28.6.1994 retiring the petitioner from service is quashed,
(iii) The respondent is directed to continue the petitioner in service till 31.5.1995 by re-employment, paying him salary with effect from 1.7.1994 and onwards.