J.Barnabas vs The District Educational Officer on 11 February, 2006

0
32
Madras High Court
J.Barnabas vs The District Educational Officer on 11 February, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT


DATED : 11/02/2006


CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI


W.P.No.1286 of 2006
and
W.P.M.P.No.1439 Of 2006
	

J.Barnabas				...	Petitioner 				


Vs.	


1.The District Educational Officer,
  District Education Office,
  Trichy 8.

2.The Correspondent,
  Bishop Heber Higher Secondary School,
  Teppakulam,
  Trichy.

3.Rt.Rev.Dr.D.James Srinivasan,
  Bishop & Manager of all Diocesan Institutions,
  Church of South India,
  Tiruchirappalli-Thanjavur Diocese,
  Diocesan Office,
  Puthur, Trichy 620 017.		...	Respondents



PRAYER


Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
records of the third respondent dated 22.12.2005 and to quash the same as
illegal and consequently to reinstate the petitioner in service or in the
alternative to settle the terminal benefits on the basis of petitioner's offer
for voluntary retirement dated 04.06.2002.

		

!For Petitioner   	...	Mr.M.Govindarajan


^For Respondents	...	Mr.Vivekanandan.
				Government Advocate


					
:ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.Vivekanandan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the third
respondent dated 22.12.2005, and for a direction to reinstate the petitioner in
service, or in the alternative to settle the terminal benefits on the basis of
petitioner’s offer for voluntary retirement dated 04.06.2004.

3. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioner has
abondoned the service as a teacher in the third respondent’s school from
07.08.2001. The case of the petitioner is that even though, it is true that from
07.08.2001, the petitioner did not attend the school, he made a representation
to the respondent on 04.06.2002, for the purpose of voluntary retirement.

4. It is seen from the records that from 07.08.2001, the petitioner is
continuously absent from duty without any intimation and he has not chosen to
take any steps to join the duty. The third respondent has sent many letters to
the last known address and the same have been returned and ultimately, the third
respondent has published a news item on 10.12.2005, in Dinamalar paper,
directing the petitioner to join duty from 15.12.2005. But, the petitioner has
not joined duty and ultimately, the impugned order came to be passed on
22.12.2005, removing the petitioner from service. On the face of it, I do not
find any reason to interfere in this case.

5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
third respondent’s school is even though, a minority school and is an aided
school getting grant from the Government, there is a duty cast on the third
respondent to constitute a School Committee, which can deal with the
disciplinary proceedings. On the ground that the impugned order is in the nature
of disciplinary proceedings one passed and without affording sufficient
opportunity to the petitioner, the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that it suffers for want of natural justice.

6. As per the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation),
Act, the minority school has no legal duty to constitute a Committee. Therefore,
this argument cannot be accepted.

7. On the basis of the third respondent’s letter and news published in the
news paper, the petitioner has not taken steps to join duty. Hence, this Court
cannot show him any sympathy and accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

8. The dismissal of this writ petition does not prevent the petitioner
from approaching the competent authority for the purpose of getting the terminal
benefits for the service rendered by him.

9. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

nbk

To

1.The District Educational Officer,
District Education Office,
Trichy 8.

2.The Correspondent,
Bishop Heber Higher Secondary School,
Teppakulam,
Trichy.

3.Rt.Rev.Dr.D.James Srinivasan,
Bishop & Manager of all Diocesan Institutions,
Church of South India,
Tiruchirappalli-Thanjavur Diocese,
Diocesan Office,
Puthur, Trichy 620 017

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here