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 certiorari, for quashing
the order, dated 03.09.2001 passed by the Director of School Education, Chennai, as also the order passed by the first Respondent, dated
21.10.2005, with a consequential prayer, for directing the Respondents to pay all service and monetary benefits to the Petitioner.
The case of the Petitioner as set up, in the affidavit is, that his wife was selected for appointment to the post of ''High School Assistant'' in the
Infant Jesus High School, Mulagumoodu. She joined the service on 1st June 1966. The wife of the Petitioner went on leave, but thereafter
absented herself from duty. She was terminated from service on 5.03.1981.
The case of the Petitioner that the services of his wife were terminated for absence without leave, without any other allegation. It was, therefore,
necessary for the Respondents to serve charge memo and hold enquiry for the alleged misconduct, but this procedure was not followed.
The case of the Petitioner further is that his wife had attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2002, as she was born on 21.11.1943. The
Petitioner''s wife filed number of representations for grant of pension to her. In response to the representations made by her, vide order, dated
03.09.2001, she was informed about termination of service with effect from 5.03.1981. The case of the Petitioner is that the copy of the
termination letter was not supplied to her.
The case of the Petitioner is that before issuance of letter showing, that her service stood terminated, a letter was written by the Headmistress,
showing her to be in service, in-spite of her absence.
The case of the Petitioner is, that for want of communication and approval by the competent authority, the order of termination is not valid in eye
of law.
That on coming to know about the order of termination, his wife preferred an appeal under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized of
Private School (Regulation) Act 1973. The appeal was not decided. Hence, she filed W.P. No. 25239 of 2001 in this Court, which was disposed
of by the following orders:
The Petitioner joined the services of the 2nd Respondent school on 1.6.66 as Assistant. She was terminated from service on 5.3.81. As against
the order of termination, the Petitioner has made representations to the 2nd respondent. The said representation was rejected by the 2nd
respondent, by order, dated 3.9.2001. As against the said order, the Petitioner has made a representation tothe1st respondent on 29.11.2001.
Even though the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 3.9.2001 and seeking for a
consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all monetary and service benefits.When the writ petition was
taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would restrict his submission seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the
representation made by the Petitioner on 29.11.01 as against the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 3.9.2001.
Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents.
In view of the limited submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the
representation made by the Petitioner on 29.11.2001 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date
ofreceiptofa copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No. costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps are closed.
In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the impugned order has been passed, which reads as under:
Proceedings of the Director of School Education
Chennai-600 006
Present;Thiru. S. Paramasivam, M.Sc., M.Ed.,
K.Dis. No. 115304/G6/2001
Dated:01.03.2002
Sub: Education-Secondary Education- Tmt. Jesuammal
Former B.T. Assistant, Infant Jesus
High School, Mulagumoodu,
Kanniyakumari District Representation
against termination.
Ref: 1. Representation of Tmt.Jesuammal,
dated 29.11.2001
Order of the High Court, Dated
21.12.2001 in W.P.25239/2001.
Tmt.S.Jesuammal working as B.T. Assistant in Infant Jesus High School, a minority school at Mulagumoodu of Thakkalai District Educational
Officer, Kanniyakumari District, was terminated from service by the School Management on 5.3.1980, for applying leave frequently. Now
Tmt.Jesuammal, vide her letter, dated 29.11.2001 has preferred appeal to the Joint Director Secondary against the order of the termination on the
ground that the management had passed the termination order without her knowledge and also without conducting any enquiry.
In the W.P. filed by Tmt.S.Jesuammal in the High Court in W.P. No. 25239/2001, the Honourable High Court in its order, dated 21.12.2001
has issued directions to the Director of School Education to dispose of the said representation of Tmt.Jesuammal, dated 29.11.2001 within a
period of Eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. The said order was received in this office on 22.1.2002.
Tmt.Jesuammal has preference her appeal u/s 43(i) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulations Act 1973. The said section provides time limit
for preferring appeals. In this case even though the order was passed by the management in the year 1980, on the contention that it was not
communicated to her the applicant has now come with the present appeal.
The school in which the applicant worked is minority school. The High Court of Judicature at Madras has held many of the provisions of the
Tamilnadu Private Schools [R] Act 1973 and the rules framed there under including appeal provisions as in applicable to educational Institutions
run by Minority on the ground that they are violative of Article 3a(1) of the Constitution of India.
The administration of the minority schools is now governed by the Tamilnadu Minority Schools (Regulations & Payment of grant) Rules 1977.
There is No. provision in Rule 7 of the said rules to enable the Director of School Education to entertain appeal against the order passed by the
Management of the Minority School.
In the above circumstances, the representation of the Tmt.S.Jesuammal, dated 29.11.2001 cannot be entertained and the same is rejected.
Dr. Director of School Educational
M.B.B.S.M.B.
To,
Tmt.Jesuammal, B.A.B.T.,
Retired Teacher,
Jesu illam, No. 4, 3rd Main Road,
Kalyanasundaram Nagar, Trichy
The wife of the Petitioner died on 03.01.2004.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the impugned order, to be violative of Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private
School (Regulation) Act 1973, by contending, that revisional power vested with the Government and it was not open to the Respondent No. 1 to
reject the appeal filed by the Petitioner, as the Government could have exercised revisional power to set aside the order of termination, in view of
the order passed by this Court.
This contention is totally misconceived. The power of the revision can only be exercised, if there is No. remedy of appeal. Once a party does
not choose the remedy of statutory appeal, it is not open to straightway file revision before the State Government u/s 45 of the Act.
No error can be found with the order rejecting the appeal, filed by the Petitioner, with the State Government, as it is not disputed that the
appeal before State Government was not competent as per statutory rules.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Government has failed to take into consideration that order of
dismissal/termination, was without framing any charge sheet or show cause notice, therefore, the order was void.
This contention again is misconceived. Admittedly, the service of the Petitioner''s wife was terminated in the year 1981, and it was for the first
time, that in the year 2001, the wife of the Petitioner challenged the order.
The ground for explaining the inordinate delay, that she was not aware of the order of termination, cannot be believed, as No. prudent man can
accept the plea that, a teacher, who does not attend the school for more than 20 years would believe, that she is still in service of the school. It is
admitted that after 1981, the wife of the Petitioner did not enter the school.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the impugned order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16, 221 and 311 of
the Constitution of India. This contention again is misconceived. The court cannot come to the help of a person, who sleeps over her right for more
than 20 years.
The appeal, filed by the wife of the Petitioner, was availed hopeless, barred by limitation. The writ petition also suffers from delay and laches.
No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned orders. ""Dismissed"". No. costs.