Madras High Court
B.Joy Vasanthi vs Karunya Institute Of on 25 April, 2018
Author: T.Ravindran
Bench: T.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 09.04.2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 25.04.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN S.A.No.1435 of 2003 & CMP.No.6334 of 2018 B.Joy Vasanthi ... Appellant Vs. Karunya Institute of Technology by its Principal, rep.by Karunya & Educational Trust, Karunya Nagar, Karunya Nagar Post, Coimbatore 641 114. ... Respondent Prayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgement and Decree dated 06.12.2001 passed in A.S.No.156 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 13.06.2001 passed in O.S.No.1140 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. For Appellant : Mr.A.Sivaji for M/s.T.S.Ramarathnam For Respondent : Mr.D.Shivakumaran JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 06.12.2001 passed in A.S.No.156 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 13.06.2001 passed in O.S.No.1140 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.
2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she was appointed as Associate Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry of the defendant institute and later, considering her seniority and other qualifications, the plaintiff was appointed as senior lecturer in Chemistry in the Department of Sciences and Humanities with effect from 01.08.1993 and further, the plaintiff was also allotted a permanent residential quarters of the defendant institute, since she had been serving in the defendant institute right from the inception in the year 1986 and while the matters were going on smoothly, the defendant institute, all of a sudden, found fault with some non-academic work entrusted to the plaintiff last year and consequently, memo had come to be issued to the plaintiff by the defendant institute attributing misconduct, misbehaviour and dereliction of duties on her part and those, false charges were answered by the plaintiff as baseless by her reply and likewise, three memos had come to be issued by the defendant institute and the plaintiff had answered all the three memos and still, the defendant institute decided to take disciplinary action against the plaintiff and an enquiry committee was constituted by the defendant institute and the plaintiff challenged the constitution of the said enquiry committee as invalid on the basis that the members of the committee were Juniors-in-service in rank and grade and so, the enquiry would not be fair. However, the said objection was not considered by the defendant institute and the committee proceeded with the enquiry and the plaintiff was also placed under suspension from service with effect from 06.07.1998 and the same was challenged by the plaintiff alleging that it lacks bona fides and the enquiry committee above constituted completed the enquiry on 28.11.1998 and the finding was delivered to the plaintiff on 10.05.1999 and the enquiry committee finding has also been signed by the three members and also one Thiru.M.Ambrose, who was examined as a witness in the enquiry on the side of the management and thus, the finding of the enquiry committee is highly prejudiced and vitiated by bias and cannot be considered to be just and impartial and it is null and void and the principles of natural justice were thrown overboard by the enquiry committee and more over, the plaintiff was not permitted to examine the witnesses requested by her and further, the management has not examined the cited witnesses in support of the allegations put forth against the plaintiff, thereby, the plaintiff was deprived of her opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and the enquiry was abruptly concluded without the plaintiff being asked to make her statement of defence and thereafter, the plaintiff received a show cause notice dated 03.05.1999 delivered to her on 10.05.1999 and by way of the same, the plaintiff understood that the finding of the enquiry committee had been accepted by the management and the management also in the said notice proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal on the plaintiff and the plaintiff was asked to give her response within 7 days. The plaintiff sent her explanation on 14.05.1999 and however, the management by way of the communication dated 10.08.1999 dismissed the plaintiff from the service and the said dismissal order is signed by the principal of the defendant institute and the dismissal order is illegal and tainted with malafides and the plaintiff, challenging the show cause notice dated 03.05.1999, has instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.649 of 1999 and the same is pending. The defendant institute dismissed the plaintiff based upon the findings of the enquiry committee, which had concluded the enquiry without following the principles of natural justice and left with no other alternative and further, as the defendant institute attempted to evict the plaintiff from the quarters allotted to her, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.
5. The case of the defendant, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The plaintiff was a lecturer in the department of science and humanities under the defendant and inasmuch as the plaintiff had indulged in the acts of misconduct as listed in the memos dated 08.06.1998, 10.6.1998, 17.06.1998 and 25.06.1998 namely that she had failed to comply with the order of the Principal regarding a special assignment given to her and that, she left the department even at 4.10 p.m on 04.06.1998, despite the instructions given to her that she had to wait for the university inspection commission's visit on 08.06.1998 and that, she entered into the office of the Executive Assistant to the Principal at 4.00p.m on 09.06.1998, while he was discharging the duties and threw a file on his face in front of the subordinates and that, she entered into the Executive Assistant's Office and used unparliamentary words and cursed him and that, the plaintiff refused to receive a memo dated 22.06.1998 issued by the Principal through the head of the department and as the explanation to the abovesaid memos submitted by the plaintiff were not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was ordered into and the enquiry was conducted by a legally and lawfully appointed enquiry committee in accordance with law and natural justice and adequate opportunities were given to the plaintiff to defend her action and the committee, on evidence found the plaintiff guilty of all the charges levelled against her and based upon the above said findings of the enquiry committee and in the interest of discipline, the defendant institute by way of the punishment for the misconduct of the plaintiff, dismissed the plaintiff from the service by its order dated 10.08.1999 and the abovesaid decision taken by the defendant is legally correct and bona fide and the contra allegations to the same made by the plaintiff are false. Even otherwise, the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable in law and the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the contract of personal service by way of a civil action. The quarters was allotted to the plaintiff in commensurate with her service under the defendant and after the plaintiff had been dismissed from the service, she ceased to retain the right to occupy the quarters and the plaintiff ought to have vacated the quarters on the termination of her service and the allotment of the quarters goes alongwith the employment of the plaintiff under the defendant and the said right gets extinguished on the termination of the plaintiff's service. Further, the plaintiff has not been using the residential quarters and instead living elsewhere and the quarters building allotted to her is kept locked and not maintaining the same and thereby, the building is facing danger of losing its value and utility and the intentions of the plaintiff are only to harass the defendant one way or the other and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW1 has been examined and Exs.A1 & A23 were marked. On the side of the defendant, no one has been examined and Exs.B1 has been marked.
7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to dismiss the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been laid.
8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:
(i).Whether Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 is attracted in this case?
(ii). Whether the impugned order of the defendant institution is appealable under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act 1976? C.M.P.No.6334 of 2018
9. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.
10. The petitioner/appellant has preferred the second appeal impugning the judgment and decree of the Courts below and according to the appellant, due to the pressure of the situation, she had failed to ask the consequential reliefs of reinstatement and backwages, while seeking the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in the suit and accordingly, on being advised, she has filed the present application seeking the consequential reliefs and as the second appeal is only a continuation of the original suit, no impediment is there in permitting the petitioner/appellant to amend the plaint by including the consequential reliefs sought for and no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the petition is allowed and hence, the petition.
11. The case of the respondent is that the petition laid by the petitioner/appellant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. After the institution of the second appeal in August, 2002, nearly 19 years after the institution of the suit, the present petition has come to be laid seeking amendment of the plaint on the footing that the consequential reliefs have to be included and the petitioner/appellant has not given any valid reason for including the reliefs and also not given acceptable reason for not claiming the consequential reliefs, while instituting the suit. Hence, the reliefs sought for by way of amendment petition, at this distance point of time, is absolutely unsustainable and the same is barred by limitation and hence, not to be entertained as per law and it is false to state that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent by way of allowing the amendment petition. On the other hand, the petition/appellant has not made out any case for entertaining the amendment and if the same is allowed, serous prejudice would be caused to the respondent and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. In the reply to the counter affidavit, the petitioner/appellant has controverted the allegations putforth by the respondent in the counter affidavit as regards the limitation bar to the proposed amendment and further, according to her, the amendment is only in the nature of consequential reliefs, to which, she is legally entitled to and in the case of the court entertaining the second appeal, she is entitled to be reinstated in service and accordingly, entitled to receive the consequential reliefs as prayed for and hence, the petition/amendment should be allowed.
13. The point that arises for consideration in CMP.No.6334 of 2018 is whether the petition is entitled for acceptance for the reasons stated therein.
14. The suit has come to be laid by the plaintiff in the year 1999 to pass a decree of declaration that the order of dismissal dated 10.08.1999 issued by the defendant institute to the plaintiff is null and void and illegal and of permanent injunction against the defendant institute restraining it from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the quarters allotted to her and for costs.
15. The defendant contested the plaintiff's suit on various grounds by filing a written statement, on the basis of the pleadings set out by the respective parties, the trial was proceeded with and accordingly, it is found that on the basis of the materials placed on record by the respective parties, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, on the appreciation of the same, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has preferred the second appeal in the year 2003 and the second appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been pending since then. When the second appeal is taken up for hearing in the year 2018, the plaintiff has come forward with the application in CMP.No.6344 of 2018 seeking the relief of amending the plaint and according to the plaintiff, at the time of laying the suit, due to the pressure of the situation, then prevailing, she had failed to ask for the consequential reliefs for reinstatement and backwages and hence, according to her, on advice, she has come forward with the application to amend the plaint.
16. The abovesaid application preferred by the plaintiff is seriously contested by the defendant contending that no valid reason has been assigned by the plaintiff for seeking the amendment of the plaint at this stage of the matter as per law and further, according to the defendant, the amendment sought for is claimed nearly 19 years after the institution of the suit and in such view of the matter, the proposed amendment is barred by limitation and hence, cannot be granted and further, according to the defendant, the claim has been laid only to further drag on the proceedings endlessly so as to cause hardship and loss to the defendant and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
17. As rightly putforth by the defendant's counsel, nearly 19 years after the institution of the suit, the present application has come to be laid by the plaintiff seeking to amend the plaint. On the above ground itself, in my considered opinion, the application deserves rejection. That apart, no acceptable and valid reason has been projected by the plaintiff for seeking the proposed amendment. The only reason given by the plaintiff for the amendment sought for is that she had not asked for the same at the time of the institution of the suit due to the pressure of the situation. It is thus found that by way of the abovesaid reason, the plaintiff is found to be aware that she should have asked for the consequential reliefs, now prayed for, even at the time of the institution of the suit. Thus, when the plaintiff is fully aware that the present amendment sought for is within her knowledge and should have sought for the same in the plaint at the time of levying the suit, having failed to do so and after suffering the decree in two Courts and when the matter is pending at the stage of the second appeal in the High Court, the case of the plaintiff that she had failed to seek the amended relief, now sought for, due to pressure of the situation, then prevailing, as such cannot be countenanced in any manner. Further, as per the amended Civil Procedure Code, it is seen that no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court come to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The abovesaid situation is found not applicable to the case of the plaintiff, as abovestated, since the plaintiff is aware of the amended relief even at the time of the institution of the suit, but, according to her, due to pressure of the situation, then prevailing, she had failed to seek the said relief. But, when the said reason does not fall under the purview of the provisions of law contained in Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code and when it is found that the plaintiff has come forward with the amended relief without any basis nearly 19 years after the institution of the suit, as rightly putfroth, the present application is nothing, but, another way engineered by the plaintiff to further drag on the proceedings which cannot be entertained in any manner.
18. In support of the plaintiff's case, her counsel relied upon the decision reported in (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 720 ( Lakhi Ram (Dead) Through LRs. Vs. Trikha Ram and others) . On the other hand, in support of the defendant's contention, its counsel relied upon upon the judgement of this Court dated 02.04.2013 passed in CRP (NPD) No.1056 of 2013 ( Anthonysamy Vs. Christoraj and another) and the decision of the apex Court dated 16.01.2012, passed in civil appeal No. 561 of 2012 (J.Samuel and others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and others). The principles of law outlined in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
19. In addition to that, as rightly putforth by the respondent/defendant, when the proposed amendment sought for by the plaintiff is found to be barred by limitation and on that basis also, at this point of time, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend the plaint, which has already become time barred and hence, it is seen that the application laid by the plaintiff for the amendment of plaint is frivolous and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
20. For the reasons aforestated, the petition is dismissed.
21. Considering the pleadings set out by the respective parties in the matter by way of the plaint and the written statement, suffice to state that the plaintiff working under the defendant institute faced disciplinary action for various misconduct, misbehaviour and dereliction of duties at the hands of the defendant and accordingly, it is found that the memos were issued to the plaintiff calling for her explanation as regards the same and inasmuch as the explanation offered by the plaintiff to the same were found not satisfactory, accordingly, the defendant framed charges against the plaintiff and also constituted an enquiry committee to conduct the disciplinary action initiated against the plaintiff. The enquiry committee, after completing the enquiry, submitted its report holding that all the charges putforth against the plaintiff stand proved. On the basis of the same, the defendant, after calling for further explanation from the plaintiff, considering the gravity of the charges putforth against the plaintiff, which stands proved, with a view to maintain and instill the discipline in the institute, deeming it fit to impose the punishment of the dismissal on the plaintiff and accordingly, inflicted the punishment of the dismissal on the plaintiff for the abovesaid misdeeds of the plaintiff and challenging the same, the present suit has come to be laid. It is found that during the period of service, the defendant had provided quarters to the plaintiff and according to the plaintiff, inasmcuh as the defendant attempted to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the quarters allotted to her, pursuant to the order of dismissal, she has sought for the relief of permanent injunction with reference to the same.
22. The defendant has contested the suit laid by plaintiff by raising the defence that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as regards the disciplinary action initiated against the plaintiff and the remedy of the plaintiff as against the order of the dismissal is elsewhere and not before the civil Forum. Further, according to the defendant, the disciplinary action has been initiated against the plaintiff in accordance with law and only after providing adequate opportunities to the plaintiff to defend her, the enquiry committee constituted held that the charges levelled against the plaintiff had been proved and accordingly, based upon the same, in order to maintain discipline in the campus, the defendant thought it necessary to inflict the punishment of dismissal and accordingly, passed the order of dismissal against the plaintiff and in such view of the matter, according to the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the reliefs sought for. Further, according to the defendant, only during the course of discharge of her duties, the plaintiff had been provided the quarters and after the order of dismissal, the plaintiff is not entitled to retain the quarters as such and the plaintiff should have vacated the same on her own accord and instead the plaintiff is deliberately squatting in the quarters without any basis and hence, according to the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the relief of permanent injunction prayed for.
23. The defendant institute has the authority to nominate the plaintiff as a lecturer in their institution. Accordingly, it is found that as rightly found by the first appellate Court, the defendant institute is also competent to inflict the punishment of dismissal, in case of dereliction of duties, misconduct, misbehaviour etc., on the part of the staff working under it. Now, according to the defendant, for the various misdeeds, misconduct, misbehaviour and dereliction of duties of the plaintiff, disciplinary action was initiated against the plaintiff. Materials placed on record would go to show that for conducting the disciplinary action initiated against the plaintiff, an enquiry committee had been constituted. Though the plaintiff has challenged the constitution of the enquiry committee, as such, as rightly determined by the Courts below, the plaintiff has not placed any material, in what way, the enquiry committee lacks the competency to conduct the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her and the plaintiff has not placed any acceptable and reliable material to hold that the members constituting the enquiry committee are juniors to her or does not have the requisite qualification to conduct the enquiry or they are incapacitated in any manner to proceed with the enquiry initiated against her. In such view of the matter, the allegations putforth by the plaintiff in the plaint that the constitution of the enquiry committee is illegal and they are amenable to the defendant institution, without any material in support of the same, cannot be accepted and it is thus found that the abovesaid allegations throwing the challenge against the enquiry committee as such by the plaintiff had been rightly disbelieved and rejected by the Courts below. No interference is called for with reference to the abovesaid findings of the Courts below.
24. The further allegations that had been made by the plaintiff in the plaint for seeking the relief of declaration are by way of contending that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry committee is against the principles of natural justice and she had not been offered adequate opportunity to present her case by enabling her to examine the necessary witnesses and prevented her, from cross examining the witnesses cited in support of the management and therefore, according to the plaintiff, the enquiry conducted is vitiated. However, as rightly determined by the Courts below, when it is admitted by the plaintiff, during the course of evidence that the enquiry committee enquired her as regards the disciplinary proceedings and she had not given any application to examine her for the second time and further when according to the plaintiff, her request for grant of time had been acceded to by the committee and only after giving adequate opportunities, they had conducted the enquiry and the man witness examined was permitted to be cross examined by her and the other witness Raja had not seen the incident, all would go to show that the enquiry committee had, after affording all the opportunities to the plaintiff to defend her, it is seen that thereby, had concluded the enquiry and in such view of the matter, the allegations putforth by the plaintiff that the enquiry committee has not conducted the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her in accordance with law and without affording due opportunities to her to defend her case as such cannot be accepted and it is found that the abovesaid pleas putforth by the plaintiff had been rightly discountenanced by the Courts below. On the other hand, as rightly determined, it is found that the enquiry had been conducted in all fair means and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, without any violation and in such view of the matter, considering the nature of the enquiry conducted, being a domestic one, it is found that no challenge could be thrown as against the conduct of the enquiry by the committee concerned and it is found that the allegations putforth by the plaintiff challenging the function of the enquiry committee as regards the enquiry conducted are found to be unsustainable and accordingly, it is found that the plaintiff is unable to place any acceptable and reliable material in support of the abovesaid allegations.
25. The dismissal order had been communicated to the plaintiff and it is found that the same has been signed by the Principal. On a reading of the dismissal order marked as Ex.A23, it is found that it is only the management, which had inflicted the order of dismissal punishment on the plaintiff and the same had been communicated by the Principal to the plaintiff. It is thus found that the Principal has not issued the said order and on the other hand, only the management i.e. the defendant institute, had passed the order of dismissal as abovenoted. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the management is not competent in imposing the punishment of dismissal against the erring staff.
26. Another challenge has been made by the plaintiff, as if the enquiry committee report has been signed by one of the witnesses, who had attended the enquiry and the same would vitiate the report of the enquiry committee. As regards the abovesaid contention, when it is found that the present suit laid by the plaintiff itself is not maintainable, all those allegations are found to be trivial in nature and as such cannot be accepted for the grant of reliefs prayed for. As rightly determined by the Courts below, it is found that the defendant institute is a minority college and falls within the said definition of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. Accordingly, it is found that as per the abovesaid Act, punishment could be inflicted by way of dismissal against the erring staff as provided under Section 19 of the said Act contained in Chapter IV. No doubt, the Section reads that the order of dismissal etc., should not be given effect to accept with the prior approval of the competent authority. The competent authority under the Act means, the university concerned as per the definition in Section 3(1). However, when it is found that the defendant institute is a minority college, the Courts below had rightly invoked Section 24(3) of the abovesaid Act, where under, the provisions sub-section (2) of Section 18 and of sections 19 to 22 (both inclusive) of the Chapter IV or any rule providing for all or any of the matters specified therein or any order made in relation to any such matter shall not apply to a minority college. It is thus found that as far as the minority institution is concerned, when it decides to impose the punishment of dismissal against the erring staff, like, the plaintiff, it is not required to forward the order of dismissal to the competent authority for its approval and in such view of the matter, the argument putforth by the plaintiff that the order of dismissal communicated by the defendant institute without obtaining the approval of the competent authority as provided under Section 19 (1) of the abovesaid Act cannot be accepted, when it is found that the defendant institute is not required to adhere to the same, considering the exemption given to it, as per Section 24 (3) of the said Act.
27. Section 24 (3), in particular occupies the field as regards some of the provisions contained in chapter-IV as above indicated. Accordingly, it is found that, as rightly determined by the Courts below, considering the general provisions regarding appeal and revision against the punishment imposed upon the erring staff, it is found that the affected party is provided with the appeal remedy as per Section 37 of the Act and further, it is noted that as per Section 49 of the above said Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question, which is by or under this Act required to be decided or dealt with by any authority or officer empowered under the Act and that apart, when as per the Section 50 of the abovesaid Act, any order made, decision taken or direction issued by any authority or officer in respect of matters to be determined for the purpose of the Act shall, subject only to appeal or revision, if any, provided under the Act, be final and no such order, decision or direction shall be liable to be questioned in any Court of law and in the light of the abovesaid legal position, it is found that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to assail the order of dismissal on the footing that the same had not been given approval by the competent authority as contemplated under Section 19 (1) of the abovesaid Act, when the approval of the competent authority is not required to be taken as far as the defendant institute is concerned and when it is further noted that the operation of Section 37, 49 and 50 would be applicable to the defendant institution and when it is also noted that the defendant institute is all competent to impose any kind of punishment as provided under law including the order of dismissal against the erring staff, if at all the plaintiff is aggrieved over the order of dismissal, she should have resorted to only the appeal remedy provided under the Act or the other remedy open to her as per law by way of writ jurisdiction if any and in such view of the matter, the recourse preferred by the plaintiff by laying a civil action challenging the order of dismissal cannot be entertained, when it is found that the same has been specifically barred under law. Accordingly, it is found that the Courts below had rightly, on a proper appreciation of the provisions of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, as above discussed, found that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is completely ousted and resultantly held that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the reliefs sought for.
28. As regards the relief of permanent injunction sought for, it goes without saying that the quarters are provided to the staff only during the continuation of their service under the institution. On the termination of their service, the staff cannot insist that the quarters allotted during the course of their service should be allowed to be retained by them endlessly without any basis. In so far as this case is concerned, when it is found that the plaintiff had been dismissed from service as above discussed, thereafter the plaintiff does not have any right to claim the retention of the quarters further and as a prudent person, the plaintiff should have suo-motu and voluntarily handed over the possession of the quarters to the defendant institute without they having asked for it. On the other hand, the plaintiff is found to be clinging to the quarters without any basis, particularly, not showing any legal entitlement in having the retention of the same, after the order of dismissal, it is thus found that the relief of permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff also does not merit acceptance in any manner.
29. The counsel for the defendant submitted during the course of arguments that the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 is not applicable to the defendant institute and accordingly, the plaintiff is left remediless in challenging the order of dismissal inflicted on her and in this connection and the other contentions placed reliance upon the decisions reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1395 ( P.Kasilingam and others Vs. P.S.G.College of Technology and others), the order of this Court dated 26.07.2011 in W.P.No.29499 of 2002 ( M.Sundaravalli, Vs. The Correspondent St.Mary's High School Kuthukkal Valasai Thenkasi, Nellai District and The District Educational Officer Nellai District, Tirunelveli), (2015)16 Supreme Court Cases 530 (Janet Jeyapaul Vs. SRM University And others), LNIND 2007 MAD 3326 ( Manuelmony Matriculation School Vs. The Principal Labour Court, High Court Campus, Chennai 104 & Another), 2009 (4) CTC 401 (The Governing Council of American College and others Vs. The Director of Collegiate Education & others), 2004-2-L.W.270 (Dr.I.Ismail Vs. MSS Wakf Board College through the Chairperson and others), (1993) 2 CALLT 217 HC (E.Mc.Gready Vs. Babbon Prosad ), the order of this Court dated 07.09.1990 in W.P.No.9142 of 1989 ( Association of University Teachers Represented by its General Secretary Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Education Department) and LNIND 1993 MAD 277 ( S.Prabhavani Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer). The principles of law outlined in the abovesaid decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
30. When it is found that the order of dismissal inflicted upon the plaintiff is passed in accordance with law and when it is further noted that the challenge thrown against the same by the plaintiff on various grounds are untenable and not established as above discussed and furthermore, when it is found that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any question vis-a-vis the conduct of the disciplinary action initiated against the plaintiff and the plaintiff has to workout her remedies only in accordance with the rules and regulations of the institution and provisions of the Act governing the institute as such and accordingly, it is found that the plaintiff's lis laid in a civil Court for the redressal sought for is found to be not maintainable and accordingly, it is seen that the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit laid by the plaintiff.
31. Considering the date of the cause of action for the suit and for the reasons aforestated, it is found that Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case and accordingly, the plaintiff should have only worked out her remedy as provided under the provisions of the abovesaid Act against the order of dismissal and in such view of the matter, the civil action laid by the plaintiff is found to be not maintainable. The substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are accordingly answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
In conclusion, the second fails and according, is dismissed with costs. C.M.P.No.6334 of 2018 is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
Index : Yes / No 25.04.2018 Internet : Yes / No sms To 1. The Principal District Court, Coimbatore. 2. The II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. 3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. T.RAVINDRAN, J. sms Pre-Delivery Judgment made in S.A.No.1435 of 2003 & CMP.No.6334 of 2018 25.04.2018