Back
2002 Supreme(Mad) 235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.V.Balasubramanian and A.K.Rajan, JJ.
Sri Kasi Mutt, Educational Agency of Sri Kumaragurubara Swamigal Arts College, Srivaikuntam and Sri Kasivasi Swaminatha Swamigal Arts College, Tirupanandal represented by its President, Srilasri Kasivasi Muthukumaraswamy Thambiran Swamigal
Versus
The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Chennai and others
W.A.No.122 of 1997
Decided On : 23 March 2002
G.Subramaniam, Senior Counsel, for N.Paul Vasanthakumar, for Appellant.
V.R.Rajasekaran, Special Government Pleader (Education), for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
K.Chandru, Senior Counsel, for Muthupandian, for Respondent No.4.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior approval from educational authorities for the transfer of teaching staff between educational institutions under the same management, emphasizing the importance of maintaining common seniority and compliance with relevant rules.
Headnote:
Transfer - Educational Institutions - Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 - Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India - O.S. No.18 of 1985 - A.S. No.62 of 1986 - W.P. No.15624 of 1995 - Rule 11(4) of the Rules relating to the Conditions of Service - [Art.30(1), O.S. No.18 of 1985, A.S. No.62 of 1986, W.P. No.15624 of 1995, Rule 11(4)] - The court discussed the issue of transfer of teaching staff between two colleges under the same management, the requirement of prior approval, and the recognition of educational agency as a single corporate unit. The judgment emphasized the need for approval from educational authorities for the transfer, the importance of maintaining common seniority of teaching staff, and the relevance of the Act and Rules in governing such transfers.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed to quash the order of the first respondent refusing to approve the transfer of teaching staff between two colleges under the same management. The petitioner claimed minority status and argued that prior approval was not necessary for the transfer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that approval from the educational authorities was required for the transfer, emphasizing the need for maintaining common seniority of teaching staff and compliance with Rule 11(4) of the Rules relating to the Conditions of Service.
Issues: The issues involved the requirement of prior approval for transfer, the recognition of the educational agency as a single corporate unit, and the relevance of minority status under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that approval from the educational authorities was necessary for the transfer, and the educational agency should obtain approval to be recognized as a single corporate unit. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining common seniority of teaching staff and compliance with relevant rules.
Final Decision: The order refusing approval for the transfer was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to apply for approval as a single corporate unit. The first respondent was directed to pass orders after affording a personal opportunity to the petitioner.
2. The writ petition was filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 26.10.1996 passed in proceedings Na.Ka.No. 39361/GII/95 and to direct the first respondent to approve the resolution of the management dated 11.7.1995 with effect from 15.7.1995.
3. The writ petitioner is Sri Kasi Mutt and the case of the petitioner is that it is an educational agency for two colleges, viz., Sri Kumaragurubara Swamigal and Sri Kasi Vasi Swaminatha Swamigal Arts Colleges, Srivaikundam and Tirupanandal respectively. The case of the appellant/ petitioner is that the petitioner institution is a Saivite religious denominational minority institution within the meaning of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. In the petition there is a reference to the suit filed in O.S. No.348 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Kumbakonam which was later transferred to the Sub Court, Kumbakonam and renumbered as O.S. No.18 of 1985 and the appeal in A.S. No.62 of 1986 on the file of the District Court, West Thanjavur at Thanjavur and it is stated that in the said proceedings the petitioner was declared as a denominational minority educational institution.
4. It is stated that the fourth respondent herein was a lecturer in Tamil, working at Tirupanandal college, and on 11.7.1995 the petitioner management passed two resolutions; one to transfer the fourth respondent to Srivaikundam college and another to transfer one Murugesan from Srivaikundam to Tirupanandal on the ground that both of them opted for migration to the respective transferred colleges. It is stated that on 19.5.1995 a resolution was passed by the educational agency of the colleges for the mutual transfer of Thirugnanasambandam and Murugesan and the resolution was passed in the presence of Srilasri Kasivasi Muthukumaraswamy Thambiram Swamigal who is the Head of the educational agency. It is stated that on 20.5.1995 letters were issued to the Joint Director, Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli and the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai stating that in the meeting held on 19.5.1995, the management has accorded concurrence for the transfer and requested necessary permission for issuing posting orders. It is stated that both the colleges come under the same management. It is stated that subsequent to the letter of the Secretary dated 20.5.1995, the fourth respondent withdrew his earlier request for transfer from Tirupanandal to Srivaikundam. However, on 11.7.1995, the meeting of the educational agency was held for considering the transfer of the fourth respondent to Srivaikundam and that of Murugesan to Tirupanandal and necessary resolution for transfer was passed. It is stated that Murugesan and the fourth respondent joined in the respective colleges and accepted the orders of transfer. There were exchange of correspondence between the petitioner and the Director of the Collegiate Education on the question of grant of approval for transfer, and the Commissioner of Collegiate Education by order dated 26.10.1995 refused to accord his approval for the transfer. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 26.10.1995.
5. Learned single Judge of this Court held that it is not a case of mutual transfer. Learned Single Judge further held that the teaching staff cannot be transferred from one college to another even though they are under the same management. Learned single Judge also held that the first respondent was correct in insisting that permission should have been obtained by the educational agency as a single corporate body maintaining common seniority of teaching staff in all the colleges under its control. In this view of the matter, learned sin
