S. 19(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Ordinance, 1975 applies to orders of suspension passed before the Ordinance came into force.

1. The petitioner is the Principal and Professor of Zoology in the Sir Theyagaraya College, Madras, which is under the control and management of a committee represented by respondents 3 to 10 herein. On 26th, May 1975, the Committee of management of the College passed a resolution framing certain charges against the petitioner and he was asked to give his explanation for the said charges. The petitioner filed his explanation on 1st, July 1975. Thereafter, the committee of management proposed to convene a meeting for 25th August 1975 to consider the charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner immediately filed O.S. 6051 of 1975 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras and obtained an interim injunction in I.A. No. 16649 of 1975 restraining the committee from homing the meeting on the ground that the committee is not competent to function and as such they have no jurisdiction to pass any orders against the petitioner. The said interim order was, however, dissolved on 24th September 1975. The petitioner then preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 158 of 1975 against the said order which is said to be pending. However, at a meeting alleged to have been held on 26th, September 1975 at 4 PM at which 5 members attended, a resolution to place the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect pending enquiry into the charges and appointing the 11th respondent herein who was the Vice-Principal as the Principal in charge and one Augustine Chellappa as Professor in charge of the Zoology department was passed. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 19th December, 1975 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement the provisions of S. 19(3) of Ordinance 17 of 9975, which came into force in the mean-while on 21st, November 1975, by restoring him to office.

2. The petitioners case is that the order alleged to have been passed by the Committee against the petitioner suspending him from the office of Principal having been passed on 26th, September 1974 it comes to an end automatically as a result of S. 19(3)(b) of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Ordinance, 1975, hereinafter called the Ordinance, that on the expiry of 27th, November 1975 the petitioner is restored to his office statutorily, that after the coming into force of the said Ordinance no order of suspension can remain in force for a period of more than 2 months from the date of suspension unless it is extended by a competent authority and that as the enquiry contemplated against the petitioner has not been completed within the period of two months, he should, without prejudice to the enquiry be deemed to have been restored to his office.

3. The stand taken by the second respondent, the Committee of Management of the College in its counter affidavit is that S. 19(3)(b) of the Ordinance refers to an order of suspension made with the prior approval of the Competent Authority under S. 19(2), that therefore S. 19(3) cannot be invoked by the petitioner against the order of suspension passed before coming into force of the said Ordinance, and that in any event Ss. 19, 20 and 21 of the Ordinance should be deemed not to have come into force having regard to the scheme and object of the Ordinance unless and until the Code of Conduct is prescribed in S. 18(1) has been formulated. It is also contended that S. 22 of the Ordinance itself shows that it has no application to prior orders of suspension, that unless the entire scheme contemplated by the Ordinance is brought into force, S. 19(3) cannot be taken to invalidate any suspension orders passed earlier, and that, in any event, the writ itself is not maintainable in law as the right and liabilities are defined by an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Committee and as the writ petition is directed against the Managing Committee of a private college.

4. Though a contention was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in the counter affidavit, it has not b