Dr. N. Baskaran, Reader and Head of the Dept., Department of Philosophy, National College vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

P.K. Misra, J.—Petitioner is a Reader and Head of the Department of Philosophy in National College, the third respondent. Fourth

respondent was the Principal of the said college. Fourth respondent completed 58 years of service on 26.7.2001, but since the date of retirement

fell during academic session, he was allowed to continue till the completion of the academic year, i.e., 31.5.2002 as per G.O. Ms. No. 281 dated

13.2.1981. Fourth respondent made representation in October 2001 seeking for extension of service till his 60th year and accordingly the third

respondent passed a resolution permitting fourth respondent to continue till the age of 60 years, subject to the condition that during the period of

extension his salary would be paid by the Management of the college. On the basis of such resolution and the recommendation of the Directorate

of the Collegiate Education, the second respondent, the Government (first respondent) passed the impugned order granting permission to the third

respondent college to continue the services of the fourth respondent as Principal with effect from 1.6.2002 till completion of 60 years.

While challenging the aforesaid order of the Government, the petitioner has contended that though extension can be given to a teacher, such

teacher cannot be allowed to continue as Principal after the normal period of superannuation. He has submitted that the provision is for extension

of service of a teacher and as per the definition clause 2(10) of the Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 the expression ""teachers"" means such

Professors, Assistant Professors, Readers, Lecturers, Demonstrators, Tutors, Librarians and other like persons as may be declared to be teachers

by the statutes framed under any law for the time being in force governing a University. It is further contended that u/s 11 of the Act, the Principal is

statutorily made a member of the college committee and u/s 14, the college committee has to discharge certain statutory functions and therefore,

only a person who is continuing in regular service can be vested with such statutory rights. It is further contended that u/s 19 of the Act, disciplinary

action can be taken against a teacher and after the normal age of superannuation, no disciplinary action is contemplated. On the basis of the

aforesaid contentions it has been submitted that even if a person is allowed to continue to teach till 60th year, such person cannot be allowed to

continue as Principal, which is a statutory post having some statutory functions and duties under the Act.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 refuting the contentions raised by the petitioner.

The contention to the effect that even though a person can be allowed extension as a teacher, but cannot be allowed to continue as Principal

does not appear to be logical nor supported by any authority. On the other hand while considering the question of applicability of G.O.Ms.No.281

dated 13.2.1981 to a case of Principal it was specifically held in 1995 MLJ 25 (A. KARUNANIDHI v. THE SECRETARY AND

CORRESPONDENT, POOMPUHAR COLLEGE, MELAIYUR) as follows :-

. . . 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.

In view of the aforesaid decision, the contention of the petitioner that even though the Principal can be re-employed as a teacher, he cannot be

re-employed as Principal is not acceptable.

The contention of the petitioner to the effect that the Principal has got certain statutory functions and duties and therefore, the person under re-

employment should not be engaged as a Principal is also equally untenable. Under G.O. Ms. No. 281, teachers are allowed to continue till the end

of the academic session. Even though such an extension period is not counted for other benefits such as pension, etc., it goes without saying that

for the purpose of discharging the statutory functions, such person is entitled to all the rights and subjected to all the liabilities. The only difference

between the extension till the end of the academic session and re-employment till 60th year seems to be that the Government is not liable to pay the

salary after the age of superannuation or the extended age of superannuation when G.O. Ms. No. 281 is made applicable. In other words, after the

extension of a person''s service till the end of the next academic session is over, if the person is re-employed till completion of 60 years, the salary

for such period has to be borne by the Management. In the present case, there is no dispute that such resolution has been passed and the

Government has also made it clear in the Order.

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.