R ABDUL KAREEM Vs. MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarifi, calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.2/2003 dated 1.12.2003 and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner was a Headmaster of the first respondent/Primary School since 3.1.1993 till 1.12.2003 in the existing vacancy. It was not in dispute that he was the senior most teacher in the said school. He had not completed five years of qualifying service and therefore the second respondent/The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruvannamalai, refused to approve his promotion. Later, on completion of five years service, as Secondary Grade Teacher, his appointment as Headmaster was approved with effect from 3.1.1993. Further, he acted as Headmaster during the period between 16.1988 and 3.1.1993. According to the petitioner, the first respondent/Primary School is possessing a minority status and in the first respondent/Primary School , there was a change in the Management of the first respondent/Primary School levelled frivolous charges against the petitioner and issued a charge memo dated 14.8.2003 containing six charges. Thereafter, by means of another charge memo dated 6.9.2003 six more charges were included, totalling in all 12 charges were levelled against the petitioner and the first respondent/Primary School called for an explanation within a period of 15 days and that he submitted his explanation on 16.9.2003 and the first respondent/Primary school without conducting an enquiry, had passed an order on 29.11.2003 holding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and also further observed that further action would be taken by the management and on 1.12.2003, the first respondent/primary school passed the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.2/2003 reducing him from the post of Headmaster to that of the Secondary Grade Teacher and hence he had filed the present writ petition to quash the impugned order of the first respondent/Primary School dated 1.12.2003.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of the first respondent/Primary School dated 1.12.2003 reducing the petitioner from the post of Headmaster to that of the Secondary Grade School Teacher was an utter violation of principles of natural justice and as a matter of fact, the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to explain his position by means of an enquiry being conducted by the first respondent and more over, the impugned order was to be set aside on the simple ground that the said order purported to have been passed, after consulting the learned counsel for the first respondent/Primary school and indeed no outside agency or an individual would have any direct hand on the decision to be taken by the first respondent/Primary School and that apart, the first respondent/Primary School had not obtained the approval of the second respondent/District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruvannamalai prior to the passing of the impugned order of penalty against the petitioner and therefore, prays for allowing the writ petition infurtherance of substantial cause of justice.