G PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. PUNJAB ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the file of the first respondent pertaining to the proceedings in reference No.PA/GS.HRD/98 and quash the order dated 25.6.1998 and consequently direct the respondents to forbear from terminating the services of the petitioners.

(2.) BY the impugned proceedings, the first respondent has declared the petitioners as surplus and sought to terminate them by giving a month's notice.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioners has emphatically argued that Sec.26 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 provides for absorption of teachers or other persons on retrenchment and the respondents herein have failed to follow the provisions of Sec.26 of the Act. LEARNED Senior Counsel has further argued that in the present case, the respondents have failed to obtain the prior permission of the competent authorities to reduce the strength of the students. Relying upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.6925 of 1997 dated 25.3.1998, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that this Court has quashed the termination order passed by the Correspondent. Chinmaya Vidyalaya Senior Secondary School. LEARNED Senior Counsel has argued that this Court in the above writ petition did not agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents therein that the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground that the respondent school is an unaided private institution. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey (1999)1 S.C.C. 741 learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the writ petition filed by the dismissed employees to challenge the orders of their dismissal is maintainable. Relying upon the above decisions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the writ petitions are maintainable and retrenchment of the petitioners is in violation of the provisions of Sec.26 of the Act and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.