The judgment established the principle that minority institutions, even when aided, have the right to administer their own affairs and are not bound by certain provisions of the Act. It also emphasized the availability of appellate remedies for aggrieved individuals.

(P.JYOTHIMANI,J.)

1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.1.2010 passed in W.P.No.13045 of 2006 filed by the appellant. The learned Judge, under the impugned order, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, has held that the second respondent/school, being a minority school, is not having an obligation of constituting a School Committee for the purpose of dealing with disciplinary proceedings against teaching and non-teaching staff and, therefore, held that the order passed by the second respondent/school in removing the appellant from service as a teacher cannot be said to be illegal.

2. The said order of the learned Single Judge is questioned by the appellant on various grounds, including:

(i) that the charges framed against the appellant are flimsy in nature and they have no basis whatsoever and the appellant having been appointed as a Telugu Teacher cannot be compelled to do any other work other than the work for which he was appointed;

(ii) that the appointment of an Enquiry Officer has taken away his right of effectively defending himself;

(iii) that Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (for brevity, "the Act") contemplates the constitution of School Committee in respect of the aided school and the second respondent, being an aided school, ought to have constituted a School Committee which alone is entitled to go into the disciplinary proceedings against the teaching and non-teaching staff; and

(iv) that when the second respondent/school imposes a major punishment of dismissal or removal from service, as per Section 22 of the Act prior approval from the competent authority should have been obtained and inasmuch as such approval has not been obtained, the order of removal passed by the second respondent/ School is liable to be set aside.

3.1. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that when once Section 22 of the Act explicitly contemplates prior approval in case of dismissal or removal from service, one cannot say that the said provision will not apply to a minority institution. Even though he would admit that the second respondent/ School claims itself to be a religious minority institution, he would contend that inasmuch as Section 22 of the Act contemplates the procedure to be followed and the same has not been heeded to, the order of removal has to be set aside, especially when the second respondent/school, admittedly, is a fully aided minority institution.

3.2. The learned counsel would submit that as a minority institution, the second respondent/school is bound by the provisions of the Act. To buttress the said argument, he would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 and further add that as long as the institution gets aid from the Government, since it is public money which is dealt with, the provisions of the Act should be strictly followed. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the removal which is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, affects the interest of not only the appellant, but also affects the national interest and, therefore, by quoting the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.M.A.Pai Foundation case, supra, he would submit that the removal from service cannot be held to be valid looking from any angle.

3.3. According to the learned counsel, the above aspects have not been considered by the learned Single Judge and he would submit that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has only taken note of Section 15 of the Act and held that the constitution of the School Committee is not a mandatory requirement for minority institution, since it has got a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, which, according to the learned counsel, cannot be taken refuge by the second respondent/school, since the right to administer contemplat