Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Section 18 in Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Marathwada University vs Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan on 13 April, 1989
16. As regards the ratification said to have been done, once it is held that the Secretary of the school committee had no power to suspend and that power was vested only in the school committee, it must follow that in the absence of express authority being conferred on the Secretary to suspend, the suspension effected would be void ab initio. Once that suspension has been declared as void, it must be follow that the school committee should not ratify such a void act. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of The Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan , would be attracted, considering the fact that the Secretary of the School Committee is required to function in accordance with the Statute, unlike the Board of Directors of the Company, which functions with a considerable degree of freedom, in matters relating to its internal management, and wherein the general body of shareholders have the necessary authority to ratify such actions of the Board, as the general body of the shareholders may regard such actions as necessiating ratification, even though such action was initially not authorised.
Section 16 in Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
P. Kasilingam vs Bharathiar University And Ors. on 29 March, 1989
Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P. Kasilingam v. Bharathiar University and Ors. (1990)1 L.L.J. 73, in which similar view has been taken.
Dr. G. Srihari vs The Madras Dock Labour Board By Its ... on 6 September, 1979
7. For the respondent- school, the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner as against the Secretary has been denied. On the question of the power of the Secretary to suspend, the contention is that the Secretary has the power to suspend the teachers or other persons employed in the school, and that even it was to be held that the Secretary is not vested with the power, the resolution of the school committee, which resolved to hold the enquiry had also authorised the Secretary to take follow up action. The authority so given to take follow up action, it was submitted, would include the power to suspend, which was incidental to the holding of the enquiry. The further submission was that even if it could be held that the Secretary does not have the power and the resolution of the school committee did not include the authority to the Secretary to suspend, nevertheless by the subsequent resolution passed by the school committee on 27.7.1995, the action taken by the Secretary in placing the petitioner under suspension has been ratified. Learned counsel for the respondent- school in this context relief upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. G. Srihari v. Madras Dock Labour Board and Anr. (1989) 1 L.L.J. 105.
1