The court held that employment in aided institutions is governed by contract law unless statutory provisions apply, making the writ petition non-maintainable for internal disputes.

ORDER :

T. Vinod Kumar, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent, learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the third respondent had caused an advertisement calling for applications for the post of Director in Katpadi Industrial Institution; that in response to the aforesaid advertisement, he had applied and was selected after interview and was appointed as Director with effect from 23.10.2012; that his appointment was approved by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 05.04.2013.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that though his appointment order dated 22.10.2012 mentioned that he would be put under regular salary structure, but, the same was not fixed or finalized; that despite his regular salary was not fixed, he had performed the duty with utmost integrity leading to development of the Institution in production wise and admission of students; that prior to his joining in the institution, was in financial crisis, which was handled by him carefully and solved almost all the pending issues of the Institution.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that whenever he was making enquiry requesting the respondents with regard to the fixation of remuneration, the respondents were only replying that the services would be recognized and salary would be paid to his satisfaction including the arrears right from the date of his appointment; that while he was awaiting for settlement of his salary and receipt of arrears, which was assured to him, he was taken by surprise, when the fourth respondent served on him a charge memo dated 06.08.2019, calling for an explanation within three days regarding certain irregularities; that he had submitted the elaborate explanation dated 24.08.2019; and that the fourth respondent did not take any further action thereon.

5. The petitioner further contended that all of a sudden, he had received a letter from the third respondent dated 11.10.2019 relieving him from the directorship with immediate effect; and that before relieving him from the directorship, no proceedings were initiated against him and even no reason was assigned for his removal from service; that as per the selection process through which he was selected in the year 2012, as his appointment was approved by the first respondent, it is only the said authority, who is competent to initiate any action against him or issue any order and since, the impugned order has been served, under the signature of the fourth respondent, the same is without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary.

6. The petitioner further contended that since, his appointment to the post of Director was approved by the first respondent being the competent authority, it is the said authority who can remove him from service on the recommendation of the third respondent, after following due process of law; and that as no disciplinary action was initiated against him and even the impugned order of removal does not mention any reason or disqualification for his continuation of service; and that his appointment being duly approved by the first respondent, he cannot be thrown out from service under an arbitrary order of the third respondent, without following due process of law of issuing a notice and affording an opportunity to adduce evidence and marking of documents.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the Katpadi Industrial Insti