Scope and applicability of Section 25 and 43

1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the Education Tribunal, Ramanathapuram, dated 9th November, 1976. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows—The petitioner is the Correspondent of the Hindu Girls High School, Watrap. The second respodent Subadra was at all material times employed as a teacher in the petitioners school. For tome Irregularities, the petitioner terminated the services of the second respondent on 31st May, 1971. Against the said order of ter mination of her services, the second respondent preferred an appeal to the Inspec-tress of Girls Schools, Madurai. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal by the order, dated 17th November, 1974, and directed reinstatement in service of the second respondent. The petitioner in turn filed a second appeal which by mistake was presented to the Chief Educational Officer instead of to the Director of School Education. The Chief Educational Officer therefore returned the appeal to the petitioner for being presented to the appropriate authority, namely, Director of School Education. Accordingly, the petitioner presented the appeal on 28th December, 1974 to the Director of School Education.

2. While so, on 1st December, 1974 the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act 29 of 1974 came on the statute book with effect from 1st December, 1974. The Act for the first time created what is known at Education Tribunal to hear second appeals against the orders passed by the Appellate Authorities. Though the Act came into force on 1st December, 1974, the Tribunal was constituted only on 21st May, 1975 by G.O. Ms. No. 1813, Education, dated 21st May, 1975. Under S. 43 of the said Act—

“No appeal under any provision of this Act shall be preferred after expiry of one month from the date on which the order, decision or direction appealed against, was received by the appellant. Provided that the Appellate Authority may in its discretion allow further time not exceeding one month for preferring any such appeal if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time.”

Now, the petitioner found himself in a rather difficult situation. He could not have filed an appeal on 1st December, 1974 before the Education Tribunal, because on that date no Tribunal had been constituted. He could not have filed an appeal on 21st May, 1975 because the appeal would have been barred by time and the tribunal would have had jurisdiction only to excuse delay upto a period of 30 days and not beyond that time. At the same time, his appeal had already been duly constituted before the Direct or of School Education on 23rd December, 1974. I use the word ‘duly constituted’ because as I have already stated, the Education Tribunal had not been established and the only authority before which the petitioner could have preferred the appeal was before the Director of School Education on 23rd December, 1974. S. 25 of the Act reads as follows-

“If, before the date of the commencement of this Act any teacher or other person employed in any private school has been dismissed or removed or reduced in rank or his appointment has been otherwise terminated and any appeals preferred before that date—(a) by him against such dismissal or removal or reduction in rank on termination, or (b) by him or the educational agency against any order made before that date in the appeal referred to in clause (a) is pending on that date such appeal shall (i) In a case failing under clause (a) stand transferred to the appellate authority prescribed under S. 23 or; (ii) in a case falling under clause (b), stand transferred to the Tribunal”

In view of this section, the petitioner applied to the Tribunal stating that he had already filed an appeal before the Director of School Education as early as on 23rd December, 1974 and therefore, the said appeal should be transferred to the file of the Tribunal and disposed of according to law. He also filed