BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24/03/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD).No.3813 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2010 Mrs.J.Stella ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Secretary, Sri Renuga Hindu High School, W.Pudupatti, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 10.01.2009 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent school. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ^For Respondent No.1 ... Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader ******* :ORDER
******
Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice
on behalf of the first respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for
final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. As per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private
Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973, a teacher of private aided school can be kept
under suspension only for a period of two months and, thereafter, it can be
extended for another period of two months, after obtaining necessary orders from
the Educational Authorities. On the facts of the present case, it is seen that
the petitioner, who is a teacher working in the second respondent school, was
placed under suspension on 10.01.2009. Earlier the petitioner has approached
this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.8942 of 2009 by impleading
the District Elementary Educational Officer and this Court, by an order dated
09.09.2009, has directed the first respondent to consider the representation of
the petitioner dated 28.05.2009. However, there was no order passed by the
District Elementary Educational Officer, since in the earlier case, by mistake,
instead of making the District Educational Officer as a party, the first
respondent herein, District Elementary Educational Officer was made as a party
and that may be the reason why the District Elementary Educational Officer has
not passed any order.
3. In the present case, even though the writ petition is filed
challenging the same order of suspension, the District Educational Officer is
made as a first respondent. In my considered view, inasmuch as the Tamil Nadu
Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973 contemplates that after two
months period of suspension, if the same is not extended on obtaining prior
permission from the Educational Authorities, the reinstatement is automatic, it
does not mean that the School Committee loses its right of dealing with the
teacher, if any, misconduct is committed.
4. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition stands ordered,
directing the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner immediately as a
teacher in the second respondent School on receipt of the order of this Court.
This order is without prejudice to the right of the School Committee of the
second respondent to proceed against the petitioner in the manner known to law,
if any misconduct, as per the Code of Conduct framed under the Act, is committed
by the petitioner. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed. No costs.
SML
To
1.The District Educational Officer,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Secretary,
Sri Renuga Hindu High School,
W.Pudupatti,
Virudhunagar District.