AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—This judgment shall dispose of W.A. Nos. 411 of 1996 and 1543 of 1999. This judgment shall also govern W.P. Nos. 17041 of 1995, 6663 of 1997 and No. 10516 of 1998. In order to understand the controversy, the facts will have to be stated as they took place. For avoiding the confusion shall refer to the parties by their names.
The lis started with W.P. No. 17041 of 1995, which was filed by Tmt. Velammal. The said Velammal was working as Head Mistress (Incharge) of the school run under the name and style of "Sri Thirumalaikumarasamy Girls'' Higher Secondary School" (hereinafter referred to as "the school" for the purposes of brevity). This school is admittedly managed by the temple, which comes under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. Therefore, the representative of the said Department is the "ex-officio member" of the "School Committee" and acts as "the Secretary" thereof.
It seems that the post of "Head Mistress" fell vacant and Tmt. Velammal was appointed as "Head Mistress (Incharge)". At the time when she was asked to work as "Incharge Head Mistress", her substantive post was "Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil)" and her case is that she was the "senior-most teacher" in the school. Be that as it'' may, in pursuance of her appointment dated 31.5.1995, she started working. However, she was served with an order dated 7.12.1995. This order was passed by S. Ramanathan, Assistant Commissioner/Secretary, H.R. & C.E. Department. This order purports to be an order wherein, number of allegations have been made and it has been suggested that six charges have been framed against Tmt. Velammal in the proposed disciplinary proceedings against her. Her reply has also been sought. The second effect of the order is that she was "reverted" to her earlier post. The said writ petition was admitted by this Court and after hearing both the sides, the learned single Judge passed an order of injunction, which was sought in this writ petition vide W.M.P. No. 27018 of 1995. By this injunction, the learned single Judge held prima facie in favour of the Petitioner and granted interim injunction, restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the proceedings dated 7.12.1995. The learned single Judge also dismissed the petition to vacate the injunction filed on behalf of the Management, represented by the Assistant Commissioner. W.A. 411 of 1996 is against this order of the learned single Judge, granting the injunction and refusing to vacate the same. However, in this Writ Appeal, it is an admitted position that the said order granting injunction is already stayed by the Division Bench. That stay order persists even till today though there have been attempts on the part of the Tmt. Velammal to get the stay order vacated.
At this stage, it will be better to refer the facts which are posterior to the beginning of the lis. The School Management advertised the post of "Head Mistress", which had fallen vacant on account of sending back Tmt. Velammal on her substantive post of "Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil)". The case of the Management was that Tmt. Velammal was not regularly selected and was only a "Head Mistress (Incharge)" and since she was sent back vide order dated 7.12.1995, the post of "Head Mistress" was liable to be filled in. Interviews were held for that post and one Tmt. P. Jayarani was selected. It is an admitted position that in this selection process, the earlier referred Tmt. Velammal took part but was not selected. We do not wish to go into the reasons of her non-selection at this stage. In pursuance of the selection of Tmt. P. Jayarani on the post of Head Mistress, the order of selection and appointment of Tmt. Jayarani has been challenged by Tmt. Velammal before the Joint Director, Higher Secondary Education by way of an appeal, which has been filed on 7.1.1997. It is reported to us by the parties, including the learned Government Pleader, that the appeal is still pending. W.P. No. 6663 of 1997 has also been filed by Tmt. Velammal praying for the early disposal of that appeal We shall come back to this aspect later on in this judgment.
However, after the selection of Tmt. Jayarani, the Department did not grant "approval" to her appointment. That order refusing the approval was passed by the District Educational Officer on 31.7.1997 against which, an appeal came to be filed by Tmt. Jayarani and the appeal was also rejected by the order dated 29.6.1998. The authority rejecting the appeal was Joint Director, Higher Secondary Education. This order is challenged by Tmt. Jayarani in W.P. No. 10516 of 1998 wherein Tmt. Jayarani has sought by way of an interim relief an order of injunction. That injunction has been refused to her and the order of the learned single Judge dated 23.7.1999 stands challenged by Tmt. Jayarani in W.A. No. 1543 of 1999.
The parties have argued their matter in extenso before us. To begin with Mr. Sridhar, learned Counsel appearing Tmt. Vellammal in all the matters forcefully submits that in W.P. No. 17041 of 1995 two aspects were challenged - one was "reversion" of Tmt. Velammal from the post of "Head Mistress (Incharge)" to her substantive post of "Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil)", and second was the "Institution of a disciplinary enquiry" against her on six changes. The first and foremost argument of the learned Counsel in so far as the institution of disciplinary enquiry is that the order is without authority and, therefore a "non est order". The learned Counsel seeks to rely on Section 18 of the Private Schools (Regulations) Act and points out that u/s 18(1)(c) of the act, the "exclusive jurisdiction" lies with "the School Committee". The learned Counsel thereafter points out that there is no such decision of the School Committee to hold any disciplinary enquiry against Tmt. Velammal and none referred to in the order.
We have carefully gone through the order, which is in Tamil. The order does not mention any resolution having been passed by the School Committee, taking a decision to inflict a disciplinary enquiry. Mr. Selvaraj, learned Counsel appearing for Tmt. Jayarani as well as the Management, says that though this was a chargesheet and though only an explanation was called, the disciplinary enquiry could be substantiated or could be instituted later on the basis of the reply. learned Counsel Mr. Sridhar points out that Tmt. Velammal has already given a reply to this so called chargesheet and no order has till been passed. However, Mr. Selvaraj, very fairly admits that there was no resolution passed by the School Committee. Once that position of facts is arrived because of the admissions of the parties then, obviously, the order dated 7.12.1995, instituting the disciplinary enquiry will have to go as that order would be rendered without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 17041 of 1995 has to succeed at least in so far as the challenge to the institution of the disciplinary enquiry is concerned. The order to the extent of instituting the disciplinary enquiry will be a "non est" and will be set aside to that extent but, the matters do not stop here. The order also" reverts" (in the language of the Petitioner) Tmt. Velammal from the post of "Head Mistress (Incharge to the substantive post of "Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil).
The learned Counsel points out that there was no question of Tmt. Velammal''s appointing as "Incharge Head Mistress" and, in fact, the earlier appointment was a substantive appointment and, therefore, there was no question of her going back to the post of "Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil). It is, however, an admitted position that Tmt. Velammal, after 7-12-1995 could not work as Head Mistress and an interview was held for the post of "Head Mistress" wherein Tmt. Jayarani was selected. We have already referred to the injunction granted by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 17041 of 1995. However, the said injunction order was stayed to the Division Bench with the result. Tmt. Velammal could not work in whatever capacity, either as "substantive Head Mistress" or as "In charge Head Mistress". The matters also do not stop here. It is very fairly admitted by Mr. Sridhar that when the interviews were held. Tmt. Velammal took part in those interviews and was not selected. It is further an admitted position that the non-selection of Tmt. Velammal and the selection of Tmt. Jayarani is already pending in an appeal filed at the instance of Tmt. Velammal before the Joint Director, Higher Secondary Education. Unfortunately for Tmt. Velammal once she takes part in the subsequent proceedings for selection, there will be no scope for her to contend that she must continue in her capacity before 7.12.1995. Her right to continue on the basis of her first appointment has been lost because of her taking part in the subsequent selection for the post of "Head Mistress". W.P. No. 17041 of 1995 to that extent must fail in as much as no injunction can be granted to her to continue in her earlier position as "Head Mistress" prior to 7.12.1995 on which she was appointed somewhere in May 1995. That takes care of W.P. No. 17041 of 1995. The writ petition succeeds partly to the effect that a declaration can be granted that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against Tmt. Velammal would be "null and void" and "non est". However, in so far as her other prayer is concerned of continuing as "Head Mistress" of the school on the basis of her appointment in May, 1995, the petition must fail.
Once W.P. No. 17041 of 1995 fails and is disposed of, there will be no question of considering the merits and demerits of the order of injunction because, admittedly, the injunction order was stayed during "the pendency of the writ appeal. The writ appeal (W.A. No. 411 of 1996) will become infructuous.
In so far as W.P. No. 6653 of 1997 is concerned, the learned Government Pleader very fairly says that there could be a direction to the Joint Director, Higher Secondary Education to decide the appeal within a time frame, leaving the time frame to the discretion of the Court. On this assurance being given, Mr. Sridhar, learned Counsel for Tmt. Velammal withdraws W.P. No. 6663 of 1997 though the same is not before us today. The necessary endorsement shall be made later on.
In, so far as W.P. No. 10516 of 1998 is concerned, it is by Tmt. Jayarani. She has challenged the orders passed by the District Educational Officer, dated 31.7.1997, confirmed by the Joint Director, Higher Secondary Education, dated 29.6.1998. We have gone through the orders. Those orders pertain to the refusal of approval to the selection of Tmt. Jayarani as "Head Mistress" of the School. We are of the clear opinion that unless the appeal filed by Tmt. Velammal is disposed of one way or the other, there would be no question of giving any approval to the post of Tmt. Jayarani, who had admittedly been selected. It will be better to direct the appellate authority, viz. the Joint Director, Higher Secondary Education to first dispose of the question of the selection of Tmt. Jayarani and non-selection of Tmt. Velammal. Once that position is clarified, the subsequent exercise can be done by the Education Department of either granting or refusing the approval to a proper candidate. However, the Petitioner Tmt. Jayarani cannot insist on the quashing of these orders dated 31.7.1997 and 29.6.1998. We hasten to make it clear that nothing in these orders shall affect the appeal which is pending against the non-selection of Tmt. Velammal and the selection of Tmt. Jayarani and that will have to be "independently decided" on the facts available and it shall be decided without being influenced by the subsequent orders dated 31.7.1997 or 29.6.1998. It will be better if that appeal is decided within six months from today. The learned Government Pleader undertakes to inform the concerned authorities regarding this time frame. The time frame shall be very strictly observed. In that view, W.P. No 10516 of 1998 shall be disposed of and resultantly, W.A. No. 1543 of 1999, which is only against the refusal of injunction by the learned single Judge, is also rendered infructuous and is ordered to be disposed of.
With these observations, we dispose of all the above proceedings. Till the decision of the appellate authority, the "status quo as on today" shall continue in respect of the post of the Head Mistress. We also hasten to add that this order of "status quo" has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the matter. No costs. All connected CM. Ps. and W.M. Ps are closed.