{"id":55286,"date":"2011-10-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011"},"modified":"2017-02-15T17:18:11","modified_gmt":"2017-02-15T11:48:11","slug":"the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"The School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 10\/10\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.10725 of 2006\nand\nW.P.(MD)No.9362 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2006 and 1 of 2008\n\nThe School Committee,\nHindu Middle School,\nrepresented by its Secretary,\nMrs.R.Lakshmi Prabha\t\t... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10725\/2006\n\nS.Rangaswami\t\t\t... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9362\/2008\n\nvs.\n\n1.The Joint Director of\n   Elementary Education,\n   Directorate of Elementary Education,\n   Chennai-600 006.\n\n2.The Chief Educational Officer,\n   Virudhunagar District,\n   Virudhunagar.\n\n\n3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,\n   Collector Officer Complex,\n   Virudhunagar-626 001.\n\n4.Mr.S.Rangaswami\n5.Educational Tribunal,\n   Sub-Court,\n   Srivilliputhur,\n   Virudhunagar District.\t\n\t\t\t\t... Respondents in W.P.(MD)No.10725\/2006\n\n1.Government of Tamil  Nadu,\n   Department of Elementary Education,\n   rep. by its Secretary,\n   Fort St. George,\n   Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The Joint Director of Elementary Education,\n   Directorate of Elementary Education,\n   Chennai-600 006.\n\n3.The District Elementary Education Officer,\n   Virudhunagar,\n   Collectors Office Complex,\n   Virudhunagar-626 001.\n\n\n\n4.Hindu Middle School,\n   P.Kumaralingapuram,\n   Valliyoor Post,\n   Virudhuangar-626 005.\n\t\t\t\t... Respondents in W.P.(MD)No.9362\/2008\n\t\t\t\nPRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.10725\/2006\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing\nthe second respondent to release the arrears of payments of the fourth\nrespondent to the petitioner.\n\nPRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.9362\/2008\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified\nMandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent made in his\nproceedings Na.Ka.No.2559\/A3\/2008, dated 29.04.2008, quash the same, and direct\nrespondents 1 to 4 to pay the petitioner's back wages from the date of\nsuspension i.e., August 1974 and the petitioner's pension payable from the date\nof the petitioner's retirement i.e. August 1997 together with damages of Rs.10\nlakhs for monetary loss and mental agony.\n\t\tW.P.(MD)No.10725\/2006\n!For Petitioner\t\t... Mr.M.E.Ilango\n\t\t   \t    For Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah\n^For Respondents 1to3&5 ... Mr.M.Govindan\n\t\t\t    Special Government Pleader\nFor Respondent No.4\t... Mr.S.Natarajan\nW.P.(MD)No.9362\/2008\nFor Petitioner\t  \t... Mr.S.Natarajan\nFor Respondents 1to3\t... Mr.M.Govindan\n\t\t\t    Special Government Pleader\nFor Respondent No.4\t... Mr.M.E.Ilango\n\n ******\n<\/pre>\n
:COMMON  ORDER
\n*******<\/p>\n
\t\tIn W.P.(MD)No.10725 of 2006, the petitioner is the Management of a
\nSchool Committee. They have filed a Writ Petition  seeking for a direction to
\nthe State Government and its Subordinates to release the salary in respect of
\npayment due to the fourth respondent and to pass appropriate orders.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. When the said Writ Petition came up for admission on 30.11.2006,
\nnotice was directed to be served on the respondents. Subsequently, notice of
\nmotion was ordered on 14.12.2006. The Writ Petition was directed to be posted
\nafter the disposal of C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.193 of 2006. During the pendency of the
\nsaid Writ Petition, the fourth respondent, school teacher had filed another Writ
\nPetition being W.P.(MD)No.9362 of 2008. In that Writ Petition, he had challenged
\nthe order of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, dated
\n29.04.2008, wherein he had declined to entertain the request of the petitioner
\nfor grant of wages for the period of non-employment and regularisation of his
\nservices on the plea that the Writ Petition filed by the Management in
\nW.P(MD).No.10725 of 2006 was pending and it is only when the Management pays the
\narrears of salary and sends proposal for regularisation, steps towards payment
\nof pension will be taken.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. When that Writ Petition came up on 23.10.2008, this Court ordered
\nnotice of motion to the respondents. Since both the Writ Petitions arose out of
\nthe same transaction, they were directed to be heard together and a common order
\nis passed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. Heard the arguments of Mr.M.E.Ilango, learned counsel appearing
\nfor the School Management and Mr.S.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the
\nschool teacher and Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing
\nfor the official respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. The story of the petitioner-school teacher has a long history.
\nInitially, the teacher was working as a Headmaster of the Middle School. He was
\nplaced under suspension in the month of August, 1974. Subsequently, he was
\ndismissed from service, by an order dated 01.11.1974. As against the said
\ndismissal, the teacher filed an appeal before the Chief Educational Officer. The
\nChief Educational Officer also rejected his appeal. Thereafter, the teacher
\nfiled a second appeal before the Educational Tribunal being C.M.A.No.14 of 1976.
\nIt was allowed in favour of the school teacher and the matter was remitted back
\nto the Management for fresh enquiry. On such remand, the School Management
\nconducted enquiry and sought for approval from the District Elementary
\nEducational Officer.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6. Approval of his dismissal was granted. Aggrieved by the same, the
\nteacher filed a first appeal. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. As
\nagainst the same, he filed a second appeal being C.M.A.No.1 of 1979 and that
\nappeal was transferred and re-numbered as C.M.A.No.47 of 1981. The said
\nC.M.A.No.47 of 1981 was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.10.1981.
\nThe teacher come before this Court by filing W.P.No.5555 of 1982. Once again, by
\nan order dated 28.02.1989, the matter was remanded for fresh disposal.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. After a fresh enquiry, the Tribunal has passed the same order by
\ndismissing the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the teacher filed a Writ
\nPetition being W.P.No.14584 of 1993. This Court allowed the said Writ Petition
\nby an order dated 27.07.2000 and remanded the case to the Tribunal. On such
\nremand, the Tribunal, by order dated 21.11.2001, allowed the appeal and held
\nthat the charges levelled against the teacher were not properly proved and the
\ndismissal made by the Management was not valid. Hence, he was entitled for all
\nthe consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. Curiously, the Management did not challenge the said order. On
\nthe contrary, the Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar filed
\nC.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.193 of 2006, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal
\ndated 21.11.2001, granting declaration that the termination was illegal and that
\nhe was entitled for all the consequential monetary benefits. The said Civil
\nRevision Petition came to be dismissed on 22.02.2007 by this Court. This Court
\nheld that such a  Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of the Code of
\nCivil Procedure is not maintainable, since the private school Tribunal has been
\nspecially constituted under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools
\n(Regulation) Act. Therefore, no revision will lie. This Court also observed that
\nsince the Management of the school did not file any appeal, the order became
\nfinal and all that, the Tribunal held that the teacher is entitled for monetary
\nbenefits arising out of the declaration made by the Private School Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. It is surprising that the Chief Educational Officer should file a
\nCivil Revision Petition, when there was no provision for filing such Civil
\nRevision Petition. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted by section 53
\nof the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. Under
\nSection 54 of the Act, any order made by any authority under the Act shall
\nsubject only to appeal or revision, if any, provided under this Act, be final
\nand the same shall not be questioned in any other Court of law. Notwithstanding
\nthe same, the Civil Revision Petition was entertained and the matter was kept
\npending for more than one and half years by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. Subsequent to the orders passed by the Tribunal, the teacher has
\nbeen continuously representing for payment of back wages. He had also moved the
\nPrincipal Bench in W.P.No.22559 of 2003. A learned Judge of this Court, by an
\ninterim order dated 04.01.2005, directed the School Management to deposit the
\nentire back wages to the credit of C.M.A.No.47 of 1981 on the file of the
\nEducational Tribunal within four weeks. It is now stated by the counsel for the
\nteacher that pursuant to the direction, only Rs.3,00,000\/- was deposited and
\nfull arrears was not paid. Subsequently, by a communication dated 15.06.2007, a
\nshow cause notice was issued to the School Management stating that the School
\nalone was responsible for payment of wages. If any contempt petition was filed,
\nthe School Management alone will be held responsible. The School Management,
\ninstead of implementing the Tribunal’s order, contended that they have already
\nfiled a Writ Petition (i.e., W.P.(MD)No.10725 of 2006) seeking for release of
\ngrant for making arrears of payment and that the Government alone is
\nresponsible.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11. In the meanwhile, the claim for grant made by the Management was
\nreturned by the department. Subsequently, on 29.08.2007, the District Elementary
\nEducational Officer, Virudhunagar informed the Management that if the order of
\nthe Tribunal was not complied with, the recognition granted to the School will
\nbe withdrawn. Thereafter, by an order dated 15.02.2008, a direct payment system
\nwas also resumed. The extension of the post of the Secretary of the petitioner
\nSchool was also refused. The School Management, by a representation dated
\n29.01.2008, stated that so far they have been guided by the orders passed by the
\nappellate authorities and they will be obeyed by any decision granted by the
\nCourt. On the basis of the said undertaking, the subsequent appointment made by
\nthe School was approved on the condition that they will abide by the further
\norders passed by the Court. The school teacher had filed an application for
\npayment out before the Tribunal and got the deposit of Rs.3,00,000\/- released in
\nhis favour.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12. Therefore, in the light of the rival pleadings, two questions
\narise for consideration. The first question is with reference to the non-
\nemployment of the teacher, the monetary liability arising out of the declaration
\nmade by the Tribunal, whether it should be borne by the School Management or by
\nthe State Government.  The second question is that if the teacher is allowed to
\nretire during the pendency of the proceedings, whether the State Government is
\nbound to pay pensionary benefits and other terminal dues.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13. In order to decide the question of law for payment, one has to
\nascertain the nature of relationship between the School Management and the
\nteacher. The question is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court vide judgment
\nin Andi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S.Trust v. V.R.Rudan<\/a> i reported in 1989 (2) SCC 691,
\ncategorically held that in respect of Aided Private School, the relationship
\nbetween the teacher and the Management is that of the employer and employee and
\nin paragraph No.10 of the said judgment, it was stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“10. Having heard the counsel for both parties, we are left with an
\nimpression that the appellants are really trying to side-track the issue and
\nneedlessly delaying the legitimate payments due to the respondents. The question
\nwhether the State is liable to recompense the appellants in respect of the
\namount payable to the respondents was not considered by the High Court and
\nindeed could not have been examined since the State was not a party to the
\nproceedings. However, by the persuasive powers of the counsel in this Court, the
\nState has been impleaded as a party in these appeals. Perhaps, this Court wanted
\nto find out the reaction of the State on the appellants’ assertion for
\nreimbursement. We heard counsel for the State. He disputes the appellants’
\nclaim. In fact, he challenges the claim on a number of grounds. He says that the
\nState is under no obligation to pay the appellants as against the sum due to the
\nrespondents. We do not think that we need rule today on this controversy. It is
\nindeed wholly outside the scope of these appeals. We are only concerned with the
\nliability of the management of the college towards the employees. Under the
\nrelationship of master and servant, the management is primarily responsible to
\npay salary and other benefits to the employees. The management cannot say that
\nunless and until the State compensates, it will not make full payment to the
\nstaff. we cannot accept such a contention.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14. Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools
\n(Regulation) Rules, 1974, deals with the suspension of a school teacher and it
\nalso regulates the liability for payment during the period of suspension. With
\nreference to the dismissal of a teacher, Rule 17(3)(iii) deals with the same and
\nit reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Where the appellate authority has decided against the imposition of the
\npenalty of dismissal or removal from service or placement under suspension of a
\nTeacher or other person employed in a private school by the management of that
\nschool, the management of every private school, not being a minority school,
\nshall implement the order of the appellate authority and reinstate the Teachers
\nor other persons with all back wages for the period of dismissal or suspension
\nor removal within one month from the date of order of the appellate authority,
\nfailing which, apart from resumption of the post, recognition shall be
\nwithdrawn.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15. In the present case, the termination of the teacher was held to
\nbe invalid by the Tribunal. Since the Management did not file any appeal, the
\norder of the Private School Tribunal had become final, as observed by this Court
\nin the Civil Revision Petition. Therefore, the liability for making payment of
\nsalary from the date of dismissal, till the date of reinstatement or as in the
\npresent case, till the date of retirement solely vests with the School
\nManagement and not with the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16. Though Mr.M.E.Ilango, learned counsel placed reliance on a
\njudgment of this Court in Secretary, Ulagappar Higher Secondary School, etc. v.
\nJoint Director of School Education & another reported in 1997(3) LW 359, in that
\ncase, there is no reference to rule 17(3)(iii), wherein the liability has only
\nfastened on the Management. Secondly, the reasoning given by the learned Judge
\nwas certainly not approved by other judges of the Division Bench of this Court.
\nTherefore, the first Writ Petition filed by the School Management in
\nW.P.(MD)No.10725 of 2006, seeking for a direction to the State Government to
\nrelease the grant in favour of the fourth respondent is clearly against the
\nprovisions of law. Hence, there is no case made out for entertaining the Writ
\nPetition and hence, the same stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17. Insofar as the second Writ Petition filed by the school teacher
\nviz., W.P.(MD)No.9362 of 2008 is concerned, relating to payment of back wages, a
\ndirection will issue to the fourth respondent School to pay the back wages,
\nafter giving credit to the amounts already paid. With reference to the payment
\nof terminal benefits including pension, the order holding that the petitioner’s
\ndismissal was not justified had become final and the attempt by the State to
\nrevise the same curiously, by a Civil Revision Petition was also repelled by the
\nCourt. Further, the State had undertaken the liability to pay pension to all the
\nAided School staff. Hence, it is for the State Government to pay the terminal
\nbenefits including pension.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18. Therefore, the fourth respondent is directed to forward
\nappropriate pension proposals, within one month from the date of receipt of a
\ncopy of this order, as if the petitioner has continued service till the date of
\nsuperannuation. On such proposal being received by the department, they should
\ntake earnest steps to get the pension sanctioned by forwarding it to the
\nappropriate quarters and that exercise should be undertaken within three months
\nfrom the date of receipt of the pension proposals from the School Management.
\nHence, W.P.(MD)No.9362 of 2008 is disposed of with the above direction. The
\nprayer made by the school teacher for grant of damages of Rs.10 lakhs cannot be
\nconsidered, in the facts and circumstance of the case and also due to pendency
\nof various proceedings before this Court and other authorities.   Consequently,
\nthe connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
SML<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Joint Director of
\n   Elementary Education,
\n   Directorate of Elementary Education,
\n   Chennai-600 006.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
\n   Virudhunagar District,
\n   Virudhunagar.\n<\/p>\n
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
\n   Collector Officer Complex,
\n   Virudhunagar-626 001.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Educational Tribunal,
\n   Sub-Court,
\n   Srivilliputhur,
\n   Virudhunagar District.\n<\/p>\n
5.The Secretary,
\n   The Department of Elementary Education,
\n   Fort St. George,
\n   Chennai-600 009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/10\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.10725 of 2006 and W.P.(MD)No.9362 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2006 and 1 of 2008 The School Committee, Hindu Middle School, represented by its Secretary, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-15T11:48:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-15T11:48:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2328,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011\",\"name\":\"The School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-15T11:48:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-15T11:48:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-15T11:48:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011"},"wordCount":2328,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011","name":"The School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-15T11:48:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-school-committee-vs-the-joint-director-of-on-10-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The School Committee vs The Joint Director Of on 10 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55286","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55286"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55286\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}