Back
1999 Supreme(Mad) 1179
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao Matriculation Higher, Secondary School, Staff Association, rep. by its Secretary
Versus
Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao Matriculation Higher Secondary School
Writ Petition No.11596 of 1999 and W.M.P.Nos.16373 & 16374 of 1999
Decided On :Decided on : 16-11-1999
For the Petitioner:K. Chandru, Senior. Counel for D. Hariparantfiaman, Advocate.
Decided on : 16-11-1999
A private school has the authority to frame dress regulations and regulate the conduct of its teaching staff, including their dress regulations, provided that such regulations are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973 or the Rules framed thereunder.
Headnote:
DRESS REGULATION - PRIVATE SCHOOL - AUTHORITY TO FRAME - VALIDITY - TAMIL NADU RECOGNISED PRIVATE SCHOOLS (REGULATIONS) ACT, 1973 - SECTION 21(2) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 30(1).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a staff association of a private school, challenged the school's authority to impose a dress regulation on its teachers and levy a penalty for non-adherence. The school argued that it had the authority to regulate the conduct of its teachers, including their dress, under Section 21(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the school had the authority to frame dress regulations and regulate the conduct of the teaching staff, including their dress regulations. The regulation of dress which the respondent school had prescribed is of normal standards and it is decent and in no way interfere with the fundamental right or freedom, nor it in any way places the staff in an unpleasant situation or posture or appearance.
Issues: 1. Whether the school had the authority to impose a dress regulation on its teachers? 2. Whether the dress regulation violated the teachers' fundamental rights?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 21(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973 enables the School Committee to define the standard of conduct to be observed by the teachers and other persons employed in a Private School, but such standards shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under. 2. The dress regulation imposed by the school was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the Rules, nor did it violate the teachers' fundamental rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the school's dress regulation was valid and did not violate the teachers' fundamental rights.
In this writ petition, the Staff Association of Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao Matriculation Higher Secondary School, represented by its Secretary Has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari catling for the records relating to the order dated 9.6.1999 passed by the respondent ordering for a levy of penalty of Rs. 25/- per day from teachers for not adhering to Dress, Code and recovery of the penalty, from the salary of the teachers and quash the same Heard Mr. K. Chandru, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. D. Hari Paranthaman.
2. The Madras Seva Sadan is a registered Society running five schools in Chennai. The respondent is one of the five schools, which is located at T. Nagar. The respondent school is run on Matriculation Pattern and it has also an Higher Secondary Wing. In all about 1400 students are studying in the school. There are 58 teachers and 11 non teaching staff working in the said school. The school is making enormous profits since it is a Higher Secondary School and affiliated to Tamil Nadu State Board of Higher Secondary Education.
3. According to the petitioner, the respondent school is a private school as defined under Section 2 (7) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. Further, the respondent-school has also beep recognised by the Matriculation Board and the school is bound by the Code of Regulations framed for Matriculation Schools in Tamil Nadu. As the Scales of pay of the teachers was not revised, the Writ Petitioner, Association filed W.P.No:20488 of 1998 praying for the pay and allowance to be revised and fixed in conformity with the rates of pay fixed by the State in respect of Teachers employed in the Government Schools. This Court ordered notice, of motion on 24.12.1998 and the writ petition is pending. Ever since the filing of the writ petition, the respondent school came down heavily on all teachers by taking various vindictive measures and as a climax, the Secretary of the petitioner-Association has been dismissed on 16.6.1999. The said dismissal, it is stated, is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. In this writ petition, we are not concerned with the revision “of pay scales on par with Government institutions, nor with the dismissal of Asraf Ali, the Secretary of the Staff Association.
4. The respondent by Circular No. 1/99, dated 12.2.1999 while modifying the Clause-I of the Code of Conduct issued revised Dress Code, which is to come into force immediately. The Circular reads thus:—
“Masters should wear full trousers, full sleeve shirts and shoes with socks. Ties are optional.
Lady teachers should wear sarees, blouses with sleeves or salwar kamiz with duppata.
T-Shirts, shirts without collars, Jeans and Hawaiian Chappals will not be allowed” for both ladies and gents. All the Masters and Lady Teachers should strictly adhere to this Dress Code, whenever and wherever they may be on the School campus.
5. Subsequently, the Staff Association while referring to the said circular dated 12.2.1999 pointed out that the circular is not in accordance with the norms and Code prescribed for the teachers besides contending that half-sleeves slacks suit the Indian climatic condition and requested the respondent management not to insist as to wear only full sleeves shirts.
6. The petitioner also pointed out that as regards the lady teachers, there are few Anglo-Indian teaching staff and they have been coming in their traditional dress, which shall not be interfered. The respondent-school, by its reply dated 4th March, 1999 replied that the dress Regulations issued in Circular No. 1/99 dated 12.2.1999 has been considered in depth and the circular was issued for honouring the same. The implementation is, therefore, mandatory and rejected the request of the petitioner. Association to revise the circular. Once again the petitioner. Association took up the matter by its representation dated 22.2.1999. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a
