IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10/02/2004
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DHINAKAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN
Writ Appeal No.661 of 2000
Sir M.Venkata Subba Rao
Matriculation Higher Secondary
School Staff Association
rep. by its Secretary
55, Railway Station Road
Kodambakkam, Chennai-24 .. Appellant
-Vs-
Sir M.Venkata Subba Rao
Matriculation Higher Secondary
School rep. by its Correspondent
57-B, Thirumalaipillai Road
T.Nagar, Chennai-17 .. Respondent
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, against the order dated 16.11.99 made in W.P.No.11596 of 1999.
!For Appellant :: Mr.D.Hariparanthaman
^For Respondent :: Mr.S.Silambanan
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by D.MURUGESAN, J.)
An interesting question, as to the dress code imposed by the
management of a school on the teachers, arises for our consideration in this
writ appeal. As the dress code imposed by the management of the school on the
teachers is claimed for maintenance of discipline, we would like to add a few
words regarding the education and the role of teachers, in our order, before
dealing with the above question.
2. A glance at the history of education is interesting. It
may be recalled that till the middle ages, education and religion were closely
linked. Priests assumed the role of teachers and generally educational
institutions were attached to places of worship. Later, education became a
community work. Thereafter, students were imparted education in gurukulams.
In gurukulams, basically morals were taught to the students. The students
were expected to serve the guru in his day-to-day affairs and in that process,
were taught the discipline. Later, realising the importance of education,
persons interested and dedicated, started educational institutions. These
educational institutions were known as private educational institutions.
Realising the importance of education, the Government also started schools.
3. The purpose of education has always been comprehensive
enough to improve the development of all round personality of the individual.
It is treated as a basic input in the country’s development efforts and figure
prominently in the strategy of national development. Educational institutions
have become the most important socialising agent for students to provide
curriculum which is life centred. A properly educated man has the good
character and clear thinking. No civilised country can afford to ignore the
education of the people. Modern democracy based on human dignity and equality
should not remain idle only, but it should be made a live force. Education
develops amongst students qualities of initiative, leadership and spirit of
service to the community. Education means educating children in the great
eternal principle of justice and might which underline the entire length of
human existence, fitting a man to perform justly, skillfully and magnanimously
all the official, both private and public, of peace and war. It also means
cultivating manners, behaviour and judgment than bare and mere liberal
learning. It means a complete development of the individuality of the child
so that he can make an original contribution to human life according to the
best of his capacity.
4. If we view the importance of education, the role of a
teacher, in achieving the above, assumes importance. A teacher is always
entrusted with some professional responsibilities that include fostering deep
human relations, effective teaching, development of character, negotiating
individual difference and greater and more effective involvement in curriculum
development. Teacher is the main source of motivating students. Teachers are
dealers of educational system. The efficiency of the system depends on the
teacher. The teacher creates knowledge, learning, wisdom and also creates out
of the students, men and women, equipped with certain skills and ability,
which will enable them to face the challenges of life. He is the preserver of
learning and destroyer of ignorance. The teacher is the principal instrument
in awakening the child to cultural values. We need not elaborate further on
the role of a teacher and the professional code of a teacher, as the above are
only indicative.
5. The respondent-school in question is a matriculation
school. The matriculation schools in Tamil Nadu form a separate category of
their own with separate identity. These schools in Tamil Nadu and in the
Union Territory of Pondicherry were once affiliated to the University of
Madras. As the Syndicate of the University of Madras decided that the
Universities need no longer control matriculation schools and communicated the
decision to Government, the Government formed a separate Board of
Matriculation Schools in G.O.Ms.No.2816, Education dated 29.11.76. The
matriculation schools were allowed to retain their original structure. They
were permitted to levy fees and as such they were not eligible for any grant.
They were free to adopt their own curriculum and make innovations that suit
their needs. Later, a common curriculum for these schools was also
introduced. During the year 1978, the Board of Matriculation Schools decided
that a Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools (hereinafter referred to
as the “Regulations”) must be framed. Accordingly, the Regulations were
framed and notified on 1.6.78. These Regulations are applicable to the
respondent-school.
6. Since an incidental question as to the applicability of
the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 to the school
in question was raised, we deem it proper to discuss and decide the said
question at first. The Government of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu
Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as
the “Act”) in order to provide for the regulation of recognised private
schools in the State of Tamil Nadu. Under the said Act, a new private school
shall obtain permission from the Government under Section 4 of the Act. The
procedures to be followed for obtaining permission and the grant of permission
are not dealt with elaborately, as they are not required for the disposal of
this writ appeal. The grant of permission under Section 6 of the Act entitles
the school for recognition under Section 11 of the Act. Only such of those
schools which has obtained permission and recognition were entitled to payment
of grant under Section 14. In terms of the definition of a private school,
such of those schools established with permission and recognition are governed
by the said Act. Under Section 9 of the Act, a minority school need not get
permission, but shall also get recognition, as the permission under the Act is
for establishment of the school and the recognition is for the purpose of
recognising the course. As already elaborated, the matriculation schools are
governed by the regulations. In this context, it must be considered whether,
in the absence of a specific enactment governing the matriculation schools,
the provisions of the Act shall be automatically made applicable to those
schools. This issue came up for consideration before P.Sathasivam, J. in the
judgment in “TAMIL NADU MATRICULATION AND CBSE SCHOOLS TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION
v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS (20 02 W.L.R. 688)”. After a detailed
discussion, the learned Judge has held that in the absence of a specific
provision making the Act applicable to the matriculation schools, it cannot be
contended that the said Act would be applicable to the matriculation schools.
The provisions of the Act is self-contained code insofar as the grant of
permission and recognition to the private schools, established, administered
and aided by the State Government under the Act. By the very nature of
establishment of the matriculation schools without there being any aid, the
Government did not thought it fit to make the provisions of the Act applicable
mutatis mutandis to the matriculation schools also. Though the Government had
not framed a separate enactment applicable to the matriculation schools, in
view of the Regulations, we hold that the Regulations framed by the Government
in the year 1978 shall alone be made applicable to the matriculation schools
and not the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act. We are
entirely in agreement with the view of the learned single Judge in this
regard.
7. With the above background, let us now consider the issue
raised in this appeal. The appellant is the Staff Association of Sir M.
Venkata Subba Rao Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Chennai and is
represented by its Secretary by name Asraf Ali. We are referring to the name
of the Secretary for the purpose that it was argued before us by the
management that on the date when the writ petition was filed, he was not a
teacher of the school and consequently he would not have locus standi to file
the writ petition in the capacity of Secretary of the Association.
8. The respondent-school management had prescribed a dress
code in the form of Code of Conduct to the teachers. This code was in
existence even when the deponent of the affidavit in the writ petition was
appointed. From the acknowledgment of the deponent N.Asraf Ali dated
23.10.91, we find that the code was served on the deponent of the affidavit.
There was no challenge to the said code. Paragraph (1) of the code relates to
the dress regulation, wherein the teachers were directed to neatly dress.
This code was sought to be modified by the impugned circular No.I/99 dated
12.2.99, which reads as under:-
CIRCULAR I/99 12.2.99
In partial modification of clause I of Code of Conduct, the following
revised Dress Code will be implemented with immediate effect.
Masters should wear full trousers, full sleeve shirts and shoes with
socks. Ties are optional.
Lady Teachers should wear sarees, blouse with sleeves or salwar kamiz
with duppata.
T-shirts, shirts without collars, Jeans and Hawaiian chappals will not
be allowed for both ladies and gents.
All the Masters and Lady Teachers should strictly adhere to this Dress
Code, whenever and wherever they may be on the school campus.”
9. Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Association would almost reiterate the above grounds by arguing that
any instructions or rules or regulations without a statutory backing cannot be
insisted on the teachers. He would also submit that in the absence of any
provision for imposing fine, the respondent-school management has no authority
to impose fine for non-compliance of the dress code. He would submit that
none of the Regulations enable the respondent-school management to impose
either dress code or fine. He would further submit that the circular imposing
dress code was insisted only in a vindictive manner to curtail the legitimate
activities of the appellant-Association.
10. Mr.S.Silambanan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondentschool management, on the other hand, would submit that the deponent
of the affidavit retired on 16.6.99 and the writ petition filed by him on
26.6.99 is not maintainable. He would submit that the dress code was
introduced only to maintain uniform discipline not only amongst the students,
but also amongst the teachers. When the said dress code is imposed uniformly
in respect of all teachers, question of either discrimination or
vindictiveness does not arise. Question of victimisation is only intended for
the purpose of the case.
11. We have carefully considered the above submissions. Let
us now first consider as to whether the respondent-school management has the
power to issue circulars containing code of conduct for the teachers.
Regulation 3 of the Regulations relates to the responsibility of maintenance
and control of every recognised school to vest in a governing body. It shall
be responsible for the fulfillment of all the conditions upon which
recognition is granted. In fact the governing body may entrust the management
of the school to a Manager or to a Correspondent responsible to it.
Regulation 21 relates to imposition of minor punishments and the same reads as
under:-
“21. Minor Punishments.–The management may impose any of the following minor
punishment on the said teacher or a member of non-teaching staff for any
irregularity or breach of the code of conduct on the part of the said teacher
or a member of non-teaching staff.
(i) Censure (ii) withholding of increment with or without cumulative effect
(iii) Recovery from pay to the extent necessary of the monetary value
equivalent to the amount of increments ordered to be withheld where such an
order cannot be given effect to:
Provided the management follows all the procedure as laid down for awarding
major punishment and arrives at the decision of awarding a punishment.”
Regulation 22 is relevant for deciding the issue and the same reads as under:-
22. Agreement.–The management shall enter into an agreement with the teacher
or a member of non-teaching staff in forms given in Annexure VIII if the
appointment is for a period exceeding six months.
Three copies of the agreement shall be executed. One copy shall be furnished
to the teacher or a member of non-teaching staff concerned the other copy
shall be retained by the management and the third copy shall be forwarded to
the Inspector.”
As per Regulation 22, an agreement shall be executed in the form given in
Annexure VIII, if the appointment is for a period exceeding six months.
Clause 6 of Annexure VIII reads as under:-
“That the said teacher shall confirm to all the rules and regulations for the
time being in force in the said school and obey all lawful orders and
directions as he shall from time to time receive from any authorised officer
of the said school.”
12. On a combined reading of the above provisions, it is seen
that the Board of Matriculation Schools has the overall control as to the
maintenance of the school and also to issue directions from time to time to
the teachers, and on such directions, the teachers shall confirm to the same.
The power of the management of the school to issue the impugned circular
prescribing dress code shall be traceable to clause 6 of Annexure VIII
(Agreement). In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the
contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the respondent-school
management has no power to issue circulars prescribing the dress code.
13. The next question to be considered is, how far the
imposition of dress code would be reasonable. As we have emphasised the need
for education and correspondingly the responsibility of a teacher in bringing
up a student to be useful to the nation, we consider that the Court would be
very slow in interfering with the internal administration of the management of
the school, more particularly, in the matter of discipline. We have already
traced out the power of the management to issue circulars prescribing dress
code. A perusal of the circular reveals that the dress code is uniformly made
applicable to all the teachers. We do not find any discrimination in this
regard. Regulation of a dress code is only to maintain uniformity in
discipline. In the absence of any discrimination, we do not find that the
dress code could be called as unreasonable restriction warranting any
challenge before this Court. Hence, we do not find any merit in the
submission of the learned counsel for appellant that the dress code is
unreasonable.
14. The above discussion and finding do not conclude the
issue. Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the circulars could be made applicable to the teachers only in the event the
management had entered into agreements with the teachers, as contemplated
under Regulation 22 of the Regulations. He would also submit that there were
no agreements entered in the form given in Annexure VIII, and in the absence
of the same, the management cannot issue circulars. We, absolutely, do not
find any merit in the said submission. Mr.S.Silambanan, learned counsel for
the respondentmanagement produced a copy of the appointment order issued to
one Mrs.Beryl Concesso. It is not in dispute that the management enters into
an agreement with individual teachers on the date of the appointment. The
said appointment order is reproduced below:-
APPOINTMENT ORDER/AGREEMENT
Mrs.Beryl Concesso is appointed as a temporary teacher in Sir M. Venkata
Subba Rao Matriculation Higher Secondary School, T.Nagar, Madras-6 00 017 for
the academic year 1993-94 on a monthly basic salary of Rs.1200/- in the scale
of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040, D.A.-Rs.852/-, C.C.A.-Rs.70/-,
H.R.A.-Rs.125/- with effect from 9th June, 1993.
The appointment is terminable by one month’s notice or in lieu of one month’s
salary on either side without assigning any reason.
He/She will contribute to the Employees’ Provident Fund as per the act of
1952, 8.33% of his/her basic salary and D.A. Combined. His/Her contribution
will be deducted from his/her salary every month. The Management will also
contribute an equal amount to the said fund provided he/she is in service and
continues to do so after 60 days from the date of joining.
He/She will discharge his/her duties in strict accordance with the rules and
regulations of the School. He/She will further be required to perform his/her
duties in strict accordance with the orders, rules and regulations made/given
by the Correspondent, Joint Correspondent and Head Master. He/She will
undertake not to leave in the middle of a term.
He/She will signify his/her willingness on the copy of this order.
He/She will deposit his/her original certificates with the school on taking up
his/her appointment order.
Sd/-
Hon.Correspondent
Mrs.Beryl Concesso
Madras
Witness: Agreed to the conditions stated
therein.
Paragraph 4 of the appointment order refers to a clause similar to clause 6 of
Annexure VIII. As per the said paragraph, a teacher is required to perform
the duties in strict accordance with the orders, rules and regulations made by
the Correspondent, Joint Correspondent and Head Master of the school. At the
bottom of the appointment order, the teacher is asked to sign agreeing to the
conditions. When once such conditions are agreed to by the teacher, merely
because an agreement is not entered in the manner known in Annexure VIII, the
teacher can be absolved of any violation or of not obeying to the orders
issued by the management of the school. For the purpose of insistence on
following the dress code, paragraph 4 of the appointment order is more than
sufficient. That apart, there is no dispute that the management had issued
the circular, which was served on the teachers on their appointment and the
same was in force for long number of years. The said circular, prescribing
dress code, was not challenged by the appellant, though copies were served
under acknowledgment on each of the teachers. The challenge has been made
only when an amendment is sought to be made by the impugned circular on
12.2.99. In this background, we are unable to find any force in the
contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the amendment sought to
be made is only to victimise the members of the appellant-Association. We
find that no materials were placed, to satisfy ourselves, to sustain the plea
of victimisation. A vague statement of victimisation cannot be a ground to
interfere with the order, more particularly, when the circular is sought to be
enforced uniformly on all the teachers without any discrimination. When the
dress code is insisted on each and every teacher without any exception in
order to follow uniformity in discipline, we do not find any interference is
required in the challenge to the impugned circular. The dress code introduced
is ultimately for the interest and welfare of the students. If the matter is
viewed in the light of the observations made above, no interference is called
for in the challenge to the order in the writ petition.
15. In regard to the arguments as to the power of a
matriculation school to impose fine, reliance was placed on Regulation 21
relating to imposition of minor punishments. It is true that under Regulation
21, there is no provision for imposition of fine for any irregularity or
breach of code of conduct on the part of the teachers. In fact, the code of
conduct for teachers and other persons employed in a matriculation school is
detailed under Appendix-VII of the Regulations. Imposition of dress code is
not one of the code of conduct enumerated thereunder. However, we have traced
the power of the management to enforce dress code, by issuance of directions
in order to maintain uniform discipline, to clause 6 of Annexure VIII of the
Regulations. When the management of the school is empowered to issue
directions to the teachers to be followed, the necessary corollary would be
that, for non compliance of such directions, the management is entitled to
take action. We find that fine is one of the modes of imposition of penalty
on the students for violation of the disciplinary regulations. Of course, the
learned counsel for appellant is right in contending that in the event the
directions are not followed, the management may be at liberty to take
disciplinary action. In view of the fact that the overall control of the
school shall vest with the management as per Regulation 3 coupled with the
power under clause 6 of Annexure VIII of the Regulations, we do not find any
irregularity in imposing fine on the teachers for violation of the directions
issued in respect of the dress code. For the said reason, we are unable to
accept the challenge to the impugned order imposing fine for non compliance of
the directions issued by way of circulars in regard to the dress code.
16. For the foregoing reasons and also in view of the fact
that the teachers are entrusted with not only teaching subjects prescribed
under the syllabus, but also entrusted with the duty of inculcating discipline
amongst the students, they should set high standards of discipline and should
be a role model for the students. We have elaborately referred to the role of
teachers in the earlier portion of the order. Dress code, in our view, is one
of the modes to enforce discipline not only amongst the students, but also
amongst the teachers. Such imposition of dress code for following uniform
discipline cannot be the subject matter of litigation that too, at the
instance of the teachers, who are vested with the responsibility of
inculcating discipline amongst the students. The Court would be very slow to
interfere in the matter of discipline imposed by the management of the school
only on the ground that it has no statutory background. That apart, we have
held that the management of the respondent school had the power to issue
circulars in terms of clause 6 of Annexure VIII of the Regulations. In that
view of the matter also, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned
counsel for appellant in questioning the circular imposing penalty for not
adhering to the dress code.
17. In the result, we find absolutely no merit in any of the
challenges made before us. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs.
Index: yes
Internet: yes
ss