N K JEYADEVAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is against the notice issued by the fourth respondent, dated 30.12.2009 calling for the meeting of the college committee of the fourth respondent college on 11.1.2010 with various agendas. One such agenda is to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner who has been working as Principal in-charge. Admittedly, the petitioner who was working as Principal in-charge of the fourth respondent is stated to have been allowed to retire from service by a subsequent resolution of the college committee. It is also stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the meeting called for in the impugned notice on 11.01.2010 did not take place. The learned Counsel for the fourth respondent is unable to answer the same. If such a meeting has not been taken place on 11.01.2010, needless to state that it is for the fourth respondent to take appropriate action in calling fresh meeting in the manner known to law. In any event, the petitioner having been allowed to retire from the fourth respondent college as Principal in-charge, cannot at the outset maintain this writ petition challenging the agenda.

(2.) That apart, the impugned notice has been challenged under two grounds namely that the college committee which has been directed to be convened a meeting under the impugned notice has not been constituted by the authority contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. Though such ground regarding the constitution of the educational agency raised by the petitioner in the affidavit, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said point is not pressed. The said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is recorded.

(3.) The only other point which has been raised in this case is about giving of 7 days notice as per Rules. It is no doubt true that the 7 clear days notice has to be given for the purpose of convening college committee meeting, the petitioner being the Principal in-charge of the college, is certainly entitled to be the college committee member as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. Admittedly, the impugned notice dated 30.12.2009 is stated to have been served on the petitioner on 04.01.2010 and the meeting has been called 11.01.2010 on the basis of the receipt of the meeting notice on 04.11.2010. Even if the date of receipt of notice namely on 04.1.2010, is excluded, there are 7 clear days and therefore, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no seven clear days is available from the date of receipt of the said notice, dated 04.01.2010, is not tenable.