Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent is not a teaching staff and he is only a non-teaching staff, appointed in the petitioner school and therefore the Industrial Dispute raised by the second respondent before the first respondent is maintainable since the conciliation attempt was failed and the decision referred above has no application to the facts in this case.

Page 1382

7. The point in issue is whether the petitioner school is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, or by the Code of Matriculation Schools, framed by the Government.

8. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the decision reported in 2002 WLR 688 (Tamil Nadu Matriculation and CBSE School Teachers' Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.) wherein a specific issue was raised as to whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, will govern the service conditions of the Teachers and other persons employed in the Matriculation Schools as against the statutory rules. A learned single Judge of this Court in paragraph 28 of the judgment held as follows

28. In the light of what is stated above, till the legislature brings a legislation for Matriculation Schools on par with Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, the Government is well within their powers to issue executive instructions in the form of Government Orders. In the light of various clauses, particularly Clauses 17 to 23 in Chapter VI and VII of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools which are more exhaustive and which provides for service conditions of teachers and other staff, I hold that the impugned Code of Regulations for Matriculations Schools framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu are valid; accordingly the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

9. The above order of the single Judge was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2004 (2) LW 205 (Sri M.Venkata Subba Rao Matriculation Higher Secondary School Staff Association v. Sir M.Venkata Subba Rao Mat. Hr. Section School). In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Division Bench held as follows

6. Since an incidental question as to the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 to the school in question was raised, we deem it proper to discuss and decide the said question at first. The Government of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in order to provide for the regulation of recognised private schools in the State of Tamil Nadu. Under the said Act, a new private school shall obtain permission from the Government under Section 4 of the Act. The procedures to be followed for obtaining permission and the grant of permission are not dealt with elaborately, as they are not required for the disposal of this writ appeal. The grant of permission under Section 6 of the Act entitles the school for recognition under Section 11 of the Act. Only such of those schools which has obtained permission and recognition were entitled to payment of grant under Section 14. In terms of the definition of a private school, such of those schools established with permission and recognition are governed by the said Act. Under Section 9 of the Act, a minority school need not get permission, but shall also get recognition, as the permission under the Act is for establishment of the school and the recognition is for the purpose of recognising the course. As already elaborated, the matriculation schools Page 1383 are governed by the regulations. In this context, it must be considered whether, in the absence of a specific enactment governing the matriculation schools, the provisions of the Act shall be automatically made applicable to those schools. This issue came up for consideration before P.Sathasivam, J. in the judgment in "Tamil Nadu Matriculation and CBSE Schools Teachers' Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2002 W.L.R. 688)". After a detailed discussion, the learned Judge has held that in the absence of a specific provision making the Act applicable to the matriculation schools, it cannot be contended that the said Act would be applicable to the matriculation schools. The provisions of the Act is self-contained code insofar as the grant of permission and recognition to the private schools, established, administered and aided by the State Government under the Act. By the very nature of establishment of the matriculation schools without there being any aid, the Government had not thought it fit to make the provisions of the Act applicable mutatis mutandis to the matriculation schools also. Though the Government had not framed a separate enactment applicable to the matriculation schools, in view of the Regulations, we hold that the Regulations framed by the Government in the year 1978 shall alone be made applicable to the matriculation schools and not the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act. We are entirely in agreement with the view of the learned single Judge in this regard.