Private college teachers are entitled to continue in service till the end of the academic year, as per G.O.Ms.No.281, Education, dated 12.1981, and the college's decision to retire the petitioner was in violation of the G.O. and the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976.

The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the file of the respondent pertaining to the proceedings in reference Na.Ka.No.65/B1/94, quash the order dated 26. 1994 and consequently direct the respondent to continue the petitioner in service till 35. 1995.

2. The facts briefly stated leading to this writ petition are the following:

The petitioner was denied the right of re-employment till the end of the academic year, i.e. 35. 1995 contrary to the provisions of law. Poompuhar College, Melaiyur, Negai Quaide Millet District is a private college within the meaning of Sec.2(8) of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short refer to ‘the Act’). The said college is run by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (H.R. & C.E.). As per Sec.11 of the Act, the administration of the college vests with the College Committee. The said committee consists of the Principal, two senior lecturers, a representative from the Bharathidasan University to which the said college is affiliated. There are three nominees of H.R. & C.E. Department.

3. The petitioner joined service as tutor on 20.6.1966 in Tamil Department. He became lecturer in the year 1967 and professor in 1974. In 1991, he was made Principal-in-Charge. From the year 1992, he had been holding the post of Principal on a regular basis.

4. The Government by G.O.Ms.No.281, Education, dated 12. 1981 fixed the age of retirement of teacher as 58 years for the assessment of grant and if any teacher has to retire in the middle of the academic year, he would be permitted to continue till the end of the academic year. The purpose of the said G.O. appears to be that due to sudden retirement of teachers in the middle of the academic year the standard and quality of education should not suffer besides the interest of the students also should not be affected. According to Sec.2(1)of the Act, "academic year’ ‘means, the year commencing on the 1st day of June.

5. The petitioner completed 58 years as on 16. 1994, i.e., after the commencing of the academic year 1994-95. As such, he was eligible to continue in service till 35. 1995. He gave representation in that regard to continue his service till 35. 1995. This subject was although placed in the College Committee Meeting on 20.6.1994, no decision was taken. However, at the adjourned meeting held on 26. 1994, in violation of the G.O., dated 12. 1981 mentioned above, the petitioner is denied the right of re-employment and some other teacher was nominated as Principal-in-Charge. It appears two Teacher Members of the Committee had protested against the denial of re-employment of the service of the petitioner as per the G.O. The University nominee had sent telegram to grant extension to the petitioner. However, by the order dated 26. 1994, the respondent retired the petitioner from service with effect from 30.6.1994. Under circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The writ petition was admitted on 7. 1994. On the same day, interim injunction was granted in W.M.P.No.17635 of 1994.

6. Thiru K.Chandru, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the college is a private college within the meaning of Sec.2(8) of the Act. Having regard to the Secs.10,11,14,17 and 24 of the Act and the rules framed under the said Act, the respondent College was bound by G.O.Ms.No.281, dated 12. 1981. The resolution of the College Committee dated 26. 1994 to retire the petitioner from services is untenable. The resolution or decision of the College Committee running contrary to the provisions of the Act and the said G.O. issued by the Government, exercising powers under Sec.19 of the Act cannot be sustained. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Madras Christian College represented by its Secretary v. Director of Collegiate Education, Madras, 1993 Writ L