Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Sivananaintha Perumal Nadar vs The Director

Madras High Court|10 March, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned proceedings in M.M.No.28992/EEJ2/2001 dated 20.08.2001 on the file of the first respondent.
2.Aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2001, bringing the petitioner school under direct payment, the above writ petition has been filed.
3.Mr.S.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner school would contend that the order impugned in this writ petition does not disclose the reason, for which, the school was brought under direct recruitment. Referring to annexure III of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Rules, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the District Educational Officer has power to make direct payment to the Headmaster of the school or the teachers of the school only under special circumstances. Since no such special circumstances shown to exist, according to the learned senior counsel, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that as per the Rules, the Secretary of the School Committee is bound to submit monthly statement containing the details of the teachers and other persons. Only upon receipt of the statement, the salary would be released by the Government. The learned Additional Government Pleader would also point out that the impugned order states that since the period of the then trustee has expired and there was dispute regarding formation of the new school committee and appointment of the Secretary, in the interest of the institution and teachers, the institution was brought under direct payment.
5.It is not in dispute that the Management of the school is governed by the scheme framed by the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputhur. As per the Scheme decree, the right to the Secretaryship of the school is by rotation. Each Secretary holds office for a period of three years. Taking into account the situation that prevailed in 2001, the impugned order came to be passed.
6.It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no dispute regarding the management of the school after the disposal of the second appeal by this Court on 27.10.1998 and the petitioner himself has taken over as Secretary pursuant to the direction of this Court in S.A.No.372 of 1997.
7.It is not, as if, the respondents can keep the school under direct payment permanently but keeping the institution under direct payment is only a temporary arrangement when there are disputes regarding the management of the institution. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to approach the respondents apprise them of the resolution of the dispute, formation of proper school committee and appointment of Secretary. The requirements of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, is that the School Committee as well as Secretary of the school has to be approved by the officer of the relevant department. It is open to the petitioner to approach the respondents for approval of the school committee and also appointment of the Secretary. Once that is done, there shall be no impediment for the respondents to restore the rights of the management, particularly, the appointment of teachers and other employees of the school.
8.Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
?The petitioner is permitted to approach the respondents after complying with all the requirements of Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, in respect of the formation of school committee, appointment of Secretary and getting approval for the school committee as well as Secretary from the department. Once it is done, it will be open to the petitioner to seek for recalling of the impugned order. If the petitioner approaches the respondents, after complying with all the statutory requirements, the respondents shall consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Director, Tamil Nadu Elementary School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Office of District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar-626 001.
3.Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Rajapalayam-626 117.
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Rural Range, Rajapalayam-626 117..
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sivananaintha Perumal Nadar vs The Director

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
10 March, 2017