BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25/06/2008 CORAM The Honourable Mr.Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAO and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD) No.393 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 Rev.Fr.J.G.Jesudhas Clergy House, Christunagar, Nagercoil - 629 003. ...Appellant Vs 1.Rev.Fr.O.Sylvester Morais, The Secretary, St. Jude's College, Thoothoor, Kanyakumari District. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Department of Higher Education, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 006. 3.The Director of Collegiate Education College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 4.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education Tirunelveli Region, Sakuntala Complex, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 5.The Registrar of Societies Marthandam at Kuzhithurai Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents . . . Prayer Writ appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 30.04.2008 rendered in W.P.(MD)No.3670 of 2008. . . . !For Appellant ... Mr.B.Pugalendhi ^For Respondents ... Mr.Issac Mohanlal for R1 Mr.Pala.Ramasamy for R2 . . . :JUDGMENT
(The Judgment was delivered by ELIPE DHARMA RAO,J.)
The first respondent herein by name Rev.Fr.O.Sylvester Morais has filed
W.P.No.3670 of 2008, praying to quash the proceedings dated 9.4.2008 issued by
the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, thereby approving the appellant
Rev.Fr.J.G.Jesudhas as the Secretary of the College. The core contention of the
writ petitioner is that earlier by the proceedings dated 26.3.2008, the very
same authority had renewed the Secretaryship of the College for a period from
8.3.2008 to 7.3.2001 in his favour and while so, without setting aside the said
order, the impugned order dated 9.4.2008 has come to be passed. It is also his
contention that no notice of whatsoever has been given to him. The learned
single Judge, by the order dated 30.4.2008 has allowed the said writ petition,
holding that no prior approval of the Director, as is mandated under Rule 9(2)
of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 has been obtained
and that the principles of natural justice require issuance of notice to the
party whose right is going to be affected by passing of any order. Aggrieved by
the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been
filed by the fifth respondent therein viz. Fr.J.G.Jesudhas.
2.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned
order passed by the Director of Collegiate Education is only a ministerial
function, approving the resolution passed by the school committee and therefore,
no notice is required to be issued to the first respondent/writ petitioner. He
would further submit that since the function of the Director of Collegiate
Education under Rule 9 is only a ministerial one, no notice is contemplated in
the rule itself, but the learned single Judge has proceeded on a wrong notion
and allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, which needs
intereference by this Court.
3.Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 reads
as follows:
“Secretary of the Committee –
(1) The educational agency shall nominate one of its representatives as
Secretary of the committee:
Provided that it shall be open to the educational agency to nominate the
principal as Secretary of the committee.
(2) The term of office of the Secretary shall, ordinarily, be three years.
However, he/she shall be eligible for re-nomination for subsequent terms. If
the educational agency intends to change the Secretary within the period of
three years, it shall do so only with the prior approval of the Director.
Application for approval of change in the Secretaryship shall be made to the
Director in Form-6.
….”
4. Therefore, as per this Rule, the term of office of the Secretary shall
ordinarily be three years. However, he/she shall be eligible for renomination
for subsequent terms. If the educational agency intends to change the Secretary
within the said period of three years, it shall do so only with the prior
approval of the Director as per the application in Form 6. But, in the present
case, instead of getting prior approval of the Director by filing Form 6, as
contemplated under Rule 9(2), the School Committee has approached the Director
after appointment of the appellant herein as Secretary, by passing the
resolution through the Joint Director. Thereafter the Director has passed the
impugned proceeding. As has been found by the learned Single Judge, the order
of the Director of Collegiate Education is in utter violation of the procedure
contemplated under Rule 9, since no prior approval has been obtained from the
Director by filing Form-6. But, as could be seen from the Rule and also Form-
6, no opportunity of whatsoever is contemplated for issuance of any notice to
the outgoing Secretary by the Director of Collegiate Education. But, the
learned Single Judge has gone to the extent of directing issuance of notice to
the outgoing Secretary before passing any such order. Since the said direction
of the learned single Judge is against Rule 9, the same needs to be interfered
with by us.
5.Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge, insofar as directing
issuance of notice to the writ petitioner/first respondent herein and to pass
orders afresh after due notice to the writ petitioner is set aside.
6.With such observations, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
arul
To
1.The Secretary
Department of Higher Education,
Fort. St. George,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education
Tirunelveli Region,
Sakuntala Complex,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Registrar of Societies
Marthandam at Kuzhithurai
Kanyakumari District.