Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. Ramasubramanian, D. Hariparanthaman, JJ.
Governing Council of American College, rep. by Principal and Secretary, Dr. V. George Selvakumar, Madurai and Others
Versus
Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai and Others
W.A. (MD) Nos. 790, 796-797 of 2008 and 12 and 312 of 2009
Decided on : 24th August, 2009.
The Court held that the dismissal of the Principal was vitiated due to deep-rooted bias on the part of the Governing Council and also due to violation of principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008, setting aside the suspension of the Vice Principal and the Bursar and setting aside the change of Secretaryship from the Principal to the Vice Principal, was without jurisdiction. The Court further held that the writ petition filed by the Bishop was not maintainable as he was not competent to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the Governing Council under the bye-laws. The Court also held that the writ petition filed by the Vice Principal was not maintainable as his appointment as Principal and Secretary in-charge was never came into effect. The Court also held that the findings recorded by the learned Judge in paragraphs-86 to 89 and the directions issued in paragraph-90 of the impugned judgment, on the basis of the report of the Tamilnadu State Commission for Women, were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The case pertains to a dispute between the Principal and the Vice Principal of an aided minority institution, American College, Madurai. The dispute arose when the Principal applied for unearned leave on private affairs to go abroad, but the leave was sanctioned after the date on which the leave was to commence. The Vice Principal, claiming to be the Principal and Secretary in-charge, convened a meeting of the General Council and passed a resolution to suspend the Principal. The Principal, in turn, placed the Vice Principal under suspension. The Governing Council then passed a resolution to dismiss the Principal from service. The Principal challenged his dismissal in a writ petition, while the Governing Council challenged the order of the Director of Collegiate Education, which refused to recognize the Vice Principal as the Principal and Secretary in-charge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the dismissal of the Principal was vitiated due to deep-rooted bias on the part of the Governing Council and also due to violation of principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008, setting aside the suspension of the Vice Principal and the Bursar and setting aside the change of Secretaryship from the Principal to the Vice Principal, was without jurisdiction. The Court further held that the writ petition filed by the Bishop was not maintainable as he was not competent to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the Governing Council under the bye-laws. The Court also held that the writ petition filed by the Vice Principal was not maintainable as his appointment as Principal and Secretary in-charge was never came into effect. The Court also held that the findings recorded by the learned Judge in paragraphs-86 to 89 and the directions issued in paragraph-90 of the impugned judgment, on the basis of the report of the Tamilnadu State Commission for Women, were set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the dismissal of the Principal was vitiated due to bias and violation of principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008 was without jurisdiction? 3. Whether the writ petition filed by the Bishop was maintainable? 4. Whether the writ petition filed by the Vice Principal was maintainable? 5. Whether the findings recorded by the learned Judge in paragraphs-86 to 89 and the directions issued in paragraph-90 of the impugned judgment, on the basis of the report of the Tamilnadu State Commission for Women, were set aside?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the dismissal of the Principal was vitiated due to deep-rooted bias on the part of the Governing Council and also due to violation of principles of natural justice. The Court relied on the fact that the Vice Principal, who was a witness in the enquiry against the Principal, also participated in the meeting of the Governing Council which passed the resolution to dismiss the Principal. The Court also relied on the fact that the Principal was not given an opportunity to defend himself against the charges against him. 2. The Court held that the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008 was without jurisdiction. The Court relied on the fact that the Director of Collegiate Education did not have the power to set aside the suspension of the Vice Principal and the Bursar or to set aside the change of Secretaryship from the Principal to the Vice Principal. 3. The Court held that the writ petition filed by the Bishop was not maintainable. The Court relied on the fact that the Bishop was not competent to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the Governing Council under the bye-laws. 4. The Court held that the writ petition filed by the Vice Principal was not maintainable. The Court relied on the fact that the Vice Principal's appointment as Principal and Secretary in-charge was never came into effect. 5. The Court held that the findings recorded by the learned Judge in paragraphs-86 to 89 and the directions issued in paragraph-90 of the impugned judgment, on the basis of the report of the Tamilnadu State Commission for Women, were set aside. The Court relied on the fact that the report of the Commission was not placed before the Court in an appropriate manner, to enable all the parties to submit their objections to the report.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals in part. The Court set aside the order of the learned Judge whereby the proceedings of the Director of collegiate Education is declared as void. The Court also dismissed the writ petition filed by the Vice Principal as not maintainable. The Court partly allowed the appeals filed by the Principal and the Governing Council and set aside the findings recorded by the learned Judge in paragraphs-86 to 89 and the directions issued in paragraph-90 of the impugned judgment, on the basis of the report of the Tamilnadu State Commission for Women. The Court also declared the whole proceedings initiated against the Principal Dr. T. Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar culminating in the order of dismissal, to be illegal and further held that he is entitled to continue as Principal with all consequential benefits without having to go to a Civil Court.
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
These 5 writ appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Judge in 3 writ petitions, 2 of which related to the replacement of a Principal and Secretary of a college and the third related to the dismissal from service of the incumbent in the post of Principal.
2. We have heard Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, Mr. AL. Somayaji and Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in 4 writ appeals and Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No. 312 of 2009 and also the contesting respondent in the other writ appeals, Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent in W.A. Nos. 796 and 797 of 2008, Mr.V.R. Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the Enquiry Officer, who is the sixth and seventh respondent respectively in W.A. No. 796 and 797 of 2008.
3. That it is possible at times, due to irony of fate, for an insignificant event to get flared up into a huge controversy, is amply demonstrated by the batch of cases on hand. In a nutshell, one simple leave application by the Principal of a College led to (i) the appointment of the Vice Principal in his place, (ii) the suspension followed by enquiry and dismissal of the Principal by one group, (iii) the suspension of the Vice Principal and appointment of another person as Vice Principal by the other group and (iv) the refusal of the Director of Collegiate Education to recognise the change of guard, all of which ultimately landed up before this Court in 3 writ petitions, that have now become the subject matter of these 5 writ appeals.
4. Since the pleadings of parties are a mixture of chaff and grain, we have carefully segregated them and furnish herein below, only those facts which are just adequate to clinch the issues, in order to avoid a wild goose chase:
(a) A Society by name "Governing Council of the American College, Madurai" was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in June 1934 with a view to provide what is termed in the bye-laws as "a liberal Christian Higher Education."
(b) As per the bye-laws, the membership of the Society comprised of the following persons:
(i) Principal (Ex-officio)
(ii) Vice Principal (Ex-officio)
(iii) The Bursar (Ex-officio)
(iv) Two permanent members of the Faculty elected by the permanent members of the Faculty.
(v) The Bishop in Madurai and Ramnad of the Church of South India (Ex-officio)
(vi) One person nominated by the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council of Madurai and Ramnad.
(vii) One person appointed by the Synod of Church of South India.
(viii) Two persons appointed by the All India Association for Christian Higher Education from Tamil Nadu Region.
(ix) Three members co-opted by the Council.
(x) One member nominated by the Madurai University.
(c) Interestingly, Clause V.2 of the bye-laws prescribes that the term of office for all members other than Ex-officio members shall be 2 years. Normally, the membership of any registered Society will not be for a fixed tenure though the Executive/Managing Committee of a Society may be elected for a particular term. A careful perusal of the bye-laws show that they have not been brought in tune with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, which now make it necessary for the Societies registered under the Central Act, to bring their bye-laws in tune with the State enactment of the year 1975. However, it is claimed that an exemption has now been obtained from the Government, from the application of the provisions of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act to the institution in question.
(d) Before we proceed with our journey further, it is to be noted that the very name of the Society is "The Governing Council of the American College" and hence wherever the phrase Governing Council appears, in the bye-laws, it denotes the General Body and not any executive committee.
(e) Under Clause V.4(b) of the bye-laws, The Governing Council (meaning the General Body there
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
