AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the Respondents to absorb the Petitioner, as Headmistress in any Government or aided private school with continuity of service and also to pay the arrears of salary from the month of July 2004.
The pleaded case of the Petitioner is that she was employed as Headmistress in Sri Krishna Aided Primary School at Kumbakonam. The fire broke in school on 16.07.2004, killing 94 children.
A criminal case vide Cr. No. 261 of 2004 u/s 304(a) Indian Penal Code was registered against the Correspondent of the school and four others including the Petitioner. Subsequently, the FIR has been changed to one under Sections 304, 338, 285, 108 and 109 of I.P.C.
The Petitioner along with 25 other person including Correspondent of the school have been charged in the criminal case. On account of the occurrence of fire on 16.07.2004, the State withdrew the recognition granted to the school under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1983. The student were repatriated to other schools but the teachers working the school were not redeployed.
The Petitioner claim the redeployment under various Government orders. However, No. Government Order has been disclosed in the petition. It is also not disclosed that whether the Government Orders issued were administrative orders or statutory rules duly notified in the Official Gazette. The vague averments therefore deserves to be rejected.
The learned Counsel in support of the prayer of redeployment, placed reliance of Section 26 of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1983, which reads as follows:
Section 26, Absorption of Teachers or other persons on retrenchment
Where any retrenchment of any Teacher or other person employed in any private school is rendered necessary consequent or any order of the Government relating to education or course of instruction or to any other matter, or consequent on the reduction in strength of the pupil�s studying in any such private school it shall be competent for the Government or the School Committee of any private school to appoint such Teacher or other person in any private school or institution maintained by the Government or in such private school as the case may be.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, the strength of the pupil�s shall be determined in accordance with the norms fixed in the Grand-in-Aid Code of the Tamil Nadu Education Department or under any Rule, Regulation or order as may be made or issued by the Government or the Director of School Education, from time to time, for appointment of Teachers of others in any private school
u/s 26 of the ''Act'', the Government has been given power to appoint the teachers and other person in any school or institution maintained by the Government or in such private school, as the case may be. Though prima facie the Petitioner could claim the consideration of his case u/s 26 of the Act, the matter with regard to redeployment of the teachers working in the school where the Petitioner was Headmistress was considered by this Court in W.P. No. 3981 to 3983 of 2006 (P. Devi and Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai and Ors. decided on 6.6.2001.
The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment to press the claim of the Petitioner. Para 11,16,17 and 18 of the judgment passed by this Court reads as under:
Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools(Regulation)Act, 1973, the competent authority to take action like disciplinary proceedings etc., is the school Committee. In the instant case, the management itself is responsible for the unfortunate accident, inasmuch as the management has failed to provide adequate protection to the children and has not taken safety measures, and therefore, the question of the School Committee taking action against the teachers does not arise. Of course, if the competent criminal court comes to a conclusion that the concerned teachers, who have been implicated in the charge sheet, have deliberately involved themselves in the incident which has resulted in the death of the children and therefore, they are liable, there is no question of any disciplinary action or Government taking action for the purpose of redeployment, and in such event the criminal law will take its course of action.
It is seen that the Government has appointed Honorable Mr. Justice K. Sampath as a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the incident of death due to fire accident occurred at Sri Krishna Aided Primary School at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District on 16.07.2004. In the report filed by the Commission, after elaborate inquiry, the Commission has dealt with the role of teachers. In fact, the question as to whether the teachers have abandoned the children was also considered. The question framed by the Commission of Inquiry was �The incidental question would be as to what was the role of the scene?.
The Commission has considered two views, one view being that the teachers have deserted the children and the other view that the teachers apparently thought that it was a routine feature in the school to get smoke in the class rooms and asked the children to stay. In fact, the Commission has referred to the statement of the Headmistress -Santhalakshmi, who were examined as P.W.17, and considered her statement before the Police(marked as Ex.P.26), which was admitted by her during the course of examination by the Commission, to the effect that the school teachers, to the extent possible, took efforts to rescue the children and even though they were not given any training in disaster management, nearly 700 children escaped because of their efforts and it cannot also be said that none of them were hurt. Ultimately, the Commission has found that there was only a lack of judgment on the part of the teachers and not culpable negligence. It is relevant to extract the exact wordings of the Commission, which are as follows:
277.1.8.2. ...Santhalakshmi, the headmistress of the aided school, examined as P.W.17 has in her statement before the Police, marked as Ex.P26, which she admitted to be correct, stated that because smoke has engulfed the area she thought that all the children has escaped. She has further stated in Ex.P26 that the school teachers also to the extent possible took efforts to rescue the children. Again, the teachers were not trained in disaster management. However, it has to be said to their credit that nearly 700 children escaped. But for their efforts, this would not have been possible. It cannot also be put against them that none of them got hurt in the accident. Some started they received some minor injuries. Did any of the rescuers receive injuries and get treated in any hospital? there is no material on this. In the view of the Commission, there was only lack of judgment on the part of the teachers and not culpable negligence. That was sad indeed.
1
Pulavar Palanichamy
(P.W.10)
2
Sarawathy
(P.W.17)
3
Santhalakshmi
(P.W.16)
4
Prabhakaran
(C.W.255)
5
Vijayalakshmi
(P.W.15)
6
Vasanthi
(P.W.14)
7
Sivasankari
(C.W.212)
8
Paramasivam
(P.W.7)
9
Jayachandran
(P.W.9)
10
Thandavan
(P.W.11)
11
Sivapragasam
(P.W.12)
12
Madhavan
(P.W.8)
13
Balaji
(P.W.13)
14
Annadurai
(P.W.14)
15
Dr. Sivapunyam
(C.W.218)
16
Muthusamy
(C.W.219)
17
Dr.C. Palanivelu
(C.W.257)
18
Pinagapani
(C.W.258)
19
Shanmugavelu
(C.W.268)
20
Srinivas Appu Rao
(C.W.265)
21
Sethu Ramachandran
(C.W.269)
22
Govindarajan
(C.W.259)
23
Sivaraman
(C.W.264)
24
Dr.S. Chandrasekharan
(C.W.270)
However, there is a prima facie inquiry report by a responsible authority contemplated under the Commission of Inquiry Act, at least as on date, to show that the petitioners are not indictable. Under such circumstances, even though I do not propose to grant the relief as prayed by the petitioners in quashing the impugned government order insofar as it relates to the teachers who are involved in criminal cases, I am of the considered view that the indictment by the commission of inquiry, have to be directed to be redeployed in some other schools so as to enable them to work and earn their salary, but at the same time the claim of arrears from the date of the closure of the institution till today shall be left open till the disposal of the criminal case.
In the judgment on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is specifically held that the persons inducted are not entitled to the relief of redeployment.
The name of the Petitioner appears at No. 3 of the inducted persons.
Therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 3981 to 3983 of 2006, decided on 6.6.2011. There is No. merit in the writ petition which deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No. costs.