Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


C.Sivasankar v. The Director of - WP No.27733 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 809 (24 November 2005)


DATED: 24/11/2005


The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.D.DINAKARAN

WP No.27733 of 2005


WPMP Nos.30150, 30151, 31333 & 31334 of 2005 C.Sivasankar .. Petitioner


1.The Director of

School Education,

College Road, Chennai-6

2.The District

Education Officer

(East), Thayar Sahib Street,


3.S.Dilli Baskar .. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.

For Petitioner : P.Jyothimani

For Respondents: Mr.V.Karthikeyan

Addl. Govt. Pleader for RR 1 & 2 : Mr.R.Subramanian for R3

:O R D E R

The writ petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned order of the second respondent in Mu.Mu.No.1450/AA3/2004 dated 9.8.2004 and the consequential impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.5386/ A5/AA3/04 dated 29.7.2005 and to quash the same. 2.1. In the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that he is the nominated Trustee of Theagaraya Chetty Educational Institution Managing Committee, nominated by the Donor family for a period of five years from 13.8.2002, as per the scheme framed by the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.No. 811 and 812 of 1975. The third respondent was elected from the old student Constituency on 4.4.1999 for five years. After that tenure, he was re-elected from College Teacher Constituency with effect from 19.2.2004. One Jayadev Babu has challenged his selection in Application No.2673 of 2005 in C.S.No.117 of 1973 on the basis that one Isari K.Ganesh, a trustee, had to be ceased even as per the High Court order apart from other grounds. Another trustee A. Manimaran filed Appln. No.377 of 2004, challenging the Election of the third respondent from College Teacher Constituency.

2.2. While so, in the Managing Committee meeting held on 5.3.2004 by Isari K.Ganesh, the third respondent has been elected as Secretary of Sir Theagaraya College Higher Secondary School committee for three years. It is stated that one P. Theagarayan, a trustee, nominated by the Donor family, was elected as the Secretary of the School committee on 15.6.2002 for three years and his term as Secretary had to end on 14.6.2005. Based on the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 5.3.2004 and without obtaining prior approval of the third respondent as required under Rule 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private School (Regulation) Rules, the third respondent was nominated as the Secretary.

2.3. On coming to know about the legal position the petitioner opposed his nomination in writing on 12.3.2005. However, the second respondent on the basis of legal proceedings, especially an order of this Court dated 30.3.2004 in Application No.790 of 2004, directed payment of salary to the teachers directly. The Division Bench by order dated 22.4.2004 in O.S.A.No.81 of 2004 confirmed the position that Isari K.Ganesh had ceased to be a Trustee. Therefore, the meeting conducted by Isari K. Ganesh on 5.3.2004 electing the third respondent as Secretary to the School Committee is not valid and the second respondent has rightly passed the order dated 15.4.2004.

2.4. However, by order dated 09.8.2004, the second respondent approved the appointment of third respondent against his own order dated 1 5.4.2004. This Court by order dated 22.9.2004 in WPMP.No. 32807 of 2 004 in W.P.No.26935 of 2004, which was filed by one A.Manimaran, a trustee of the Managing Committee, against the order of the second respondent, dated 09.08.2004, stayed the above order, on the basis of which, second respondent directed the payment of salary directly to the teachers. But A.Manimaran withdrew his writ petition on 06.7.2005 and thereafter, the second respondent permitted the third respondent to act as Secretary of the School Committee as per the impugned order dated 29.7.2005. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Mr.P.Jyothimani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strongly placing reliance on Rule 13 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, submitted that no prior permission from the District Educational Officer, the second respondent herein, was obtained for change of secretary in the school, even though there was a proposal by the writ petitioner himself that it shall not be given effect to, as otherwise, it would be a statutory violation.

4. Per contra, Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, submitted that Rule 13(2) is out of context and will not have any application to the case on hand and that the question of prior approval will arise only when the educational agency proposes to change the secretary when vacancy arises and replaces another person in that place. But, however, the fact remains that the petitioner himself has proposed the name of the third respondent to the post of secretary.

5. The issue raised in the above writ petition is to the intrepretation of Rule 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools ( Regulation) Rules, 1974, which reads as follows:- " 13. Secretary of the school committee - (1)... (2) The term of office of the secretary shall, ordinarily, be three years. However, he shall be eligible for re-nomination as secretary 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 permission of the District Educational Officer."

The words 'if the educational agency intends to change the secretary within the period of three years', in my considered opinion, do not restrict, for any particular reason or circumstances that may arise, the change of secretary. The change of secretary within a period of three years prescribed under Rule 13(2), in other words, may arise either at the time of death of the person, who holds the post of secretary or on account of his resignation or when the educational agency proposes to change for any other just and bona fide reasons. If that be so, the prior permission of the District Educational Officer, which is a condition precedent before giving effect to the change of secretary, is inevitable.

6. Since it is not in dispute that the Management has already forwarded a proposal for change of secretary as per the Minutes of the meeting held by the Managing Committee on 5.3.2004, the educational agency shall pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till then, the fourth respondent shall not exercise his power either with respect to any disciplinary action or with respect to the action touching the financial areas, except the payment of salaries to the staff.

7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps. are also closed. sra


1.The Director of School Education,

College Road, Chennai-6

2.The District Education Officer

(East), Thayar Sahib Street,



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.