SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Mad) 1421

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN
Suresh Manohar & Another - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.24556 & 24559 of 2003
Decided On : 15 September 2003

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr.K.Chandru, Senior Counsel, for Mr.R.Yashod Varadhan. For the Respondents: Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran, Spl.G.P.

Directorate of Collegiate Education has no power to issue direction in respect of teacher of private school.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976-Sections 10, 18 and 19-Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976-Rule 13-Inspite of revocation of suspension order petitioner teacher neither allowed to take classes nor put signature in the attendance-Register by the Directorate of Collegiate Education-Held, College Committee proceedings against teachers/lecturers-Directorate of Collegiate Education has no jurisdiction to do so-Impugned direction not sustainable.

Judgment :-

COMMON ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the order of suspension issued on 28.7.2003, by the 3rd respondent.

2.The petitioner in W.P.No.24556/2003 is working as a Selection Grade lecturer in Mathematics and the petitioner in W.P.No.24559/2003 is working as a Selection Grade lecturer in English at the 3rd respondent college which is an aided institution. The petitioners were suspended from service on 17.7.2003 by the 3rd respondent, as they have not attended duty on 3.7.2003. Subsequently, a perusal of the explanation given by the petitioners and other persons who were suspended along with the petitioners, the order of suspension dated 17.3.2003 was revoked. Thereafter, under the impugned order dated 28.7.2003, referring to the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 26.7.2003, it was informed to the petitioners that they could not be reinstated and so they are directed not to sign attendance register and not to engage classes till further orders. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the 3rd respondent-college is an aided institution, the powers can be exercised either by the Government or by the 3rd respondent only, as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter called 'the Act', and the Rules made thereunder. Referring to Sec.10 of the Act, learned Senior Counsel submitted that power to give direction, is only to implement the provisions of the Act and not to exercise the powers contrary to the scope of the Act. Referring to Sec.19 of the Act, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the order of suspension can be made only for two months and if for any reason, it can be extended for further two months, if in the opinion of the competent authority, the enquiry should not be completed within the said period of two months, that too, for the reasons directly attributable to a teacher or such person. In effect, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the 2nd respondent-director has no jurisdiction to give direction to the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioners to work in the 3rd respondent-college. The power given under the Act to give directions cannot be traced to issue the direction now impugned in these writ petitions.

4. Mr. V.R.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents submitted that the Government is paying the aid to the 3rd respondent-college and so the Government is interested in the discipline which has to be maintained in the said college itself. In view of the fact that the petitioners have been arrested and kept in jail, such a direction was given not to permit the petitioners to work in the 3rd respondent-college, until further orders. According to him, such a direction is in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions, namely, under Sec.10 of the Act and that too in the interest of justice of the 3rd respondent-college, and in general, in the interest of public.

5. In the present case, originally, the petitioners were suspended, along with others, on 17.7.2003. The said order was passed by the Principal-in charge of the 3rd respondent-college. The petitioners and other members of the staff gave explanation and requested to revoke the suspension. On satisfying with the said explanation given by the petitioners and other staff, the order of suspension was revoked on 18.7.2003. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent in the proceedings dated 26.7.2003, directed the Secretaries of the Government aided colleges to consider the representation for suspension of the orders issued by them in respect of the employees/teachers without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against them, and while considering the same, the said Secretaries have been requested to contact the concerned police authorities and obtain the list of names arrested and F.I.R., lodged against
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top