Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The school management is bound by Clause 18 of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools (for short the Code);

The provisions of the Code prescribed by the State Government cannot be done away with, without proper amendment in the Regulations;

The Regulation prescribing 60 years by the Government does not violate fundamental rights of the minority institutions as enshrined in Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

4 The learned Single, having heard all the parties, relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Venkateswaran vs. The Director of School Education, [(1999) 3 MLJ 94], allowed the writ petitions by a common order, holding that the appellant school is bound by Clause 18(i) of the Code. Challenging the same, the school Management has preferred these two appeals.

7 Mr. R. Saseetharan, learned counsel for the first respondent in W.A. No.453 of 2014, in addition, would submit that the Code was framed for the purpose of regulating the service conditions of the staff members of Matriculation schools. Thus, the school management, unilaterally, cannot take a decision to reduce the age of superannuation, which is contrary to the statutory provisions. There has to be uniform pattern of fixation of retirement age for all teachers in the Matriculation schools. In Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College vs. T. Jose and Others, (2007) 1 SCC 386, it was held that the staff in the minority institutions cannot be placed at dis-advantageous position and as such, Regulations can be framed in the larger public interest to ensure equality with the majority. The retirement also is a condition of service which can be regulated by the State Government. The State Government cannot be allowed to file a counter affidavit contrary to its own regulations and provisions of the Code, without making necessary amendments in accordance with the established procedure of law.

9 Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant school Management, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and the respective learned counsel for the private respondents/writ petitioners and perused the documents.

10 The Code is a compilation of instructions approved by the Board of Matriculation Schools, after consultation with the Heads of Matriculation Schools, for orderly control and regulation of the Matriculation Schools. Clause 18 (i) of the Code provides the age of superannuation for the members of the staff, including the Principal, as prescribed by the University, i.e. 60 years. It further provides that if a staff member is to retire in the middle of the academic year, he will continue till the closure of the academic year, i.e., 31st May. There is a further provision for extension for a period of two years by the Director of Schools. Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 18 of the Code provides for payment of salary to the staff at the rate of Government scales of pay. The proforma of application for recognition of Schools as in Annxure III of the Code, contains a declaration, wherein, the Management has to give a declaration that the Management shall abide by the conditions for recognition in Rule 10 and also the provisions of the Code. Indisputably, the appellant school Management filed a declaration, as prescribed, before grant of recognition. As afore-stated, the appellant school Management took a decision to reduce the retirement age of staff from 60 years to 58 years pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant school.

18 For the reasons stated hereinabove, the decision of the appellant school Management to reduce the age of superannuation of its staff members from 60 years to 58 years, cannot be faulted with. As such, the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions stands set aside.

19 Resultantly, the writ appeals are allowed and the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

(S.K.A.,J.)    (M.M.S.,J.)
							             22.08.2014
Index:Yes/No
cad



To

1	The Secretary to Government
	Government of Tamil Nadu
	Department of Education
	Fort St. George
	Chennai 600 009

2	The Director of Matriculation Schools
	Directorate of Matriculation Schools
	Chennai 600 006

3	The Inspector of Matriculation Schools
	Directorate of Matriculation Schools
	Chennai 600 006

SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.

				 and 

M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

											cad				

	










		Pre-delivery common judgment in
W.A. Nos.453 of 2014 and 587 of 2014















22.08.2014