PETITIONER Vs. RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE returnable in two weeks. Private notice is also permitted.

(2.) MR .T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order on the ground of jurisdiction that the impugned order has been passed by the Educational Agency and it is not by the College Committee. Therefore, the educational agency is not the competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension before the college committee takes a decision and he pointed out Section 14(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the College Committee is an authority to take disciplinary action against the teachers and other persons of the private college. Further, under Clause (2) of Section 14(1)(c), the Educational agency shall be bound by anything done by the college committee in the discharge of the functions of that committee under this Act. Clause 3 contemplates that for the purpose of this Act, any decision or action taken by the college committee in respect of any matter over which the college committee has jurisdiction shall be deemed to be the decision or action taken by the educational agency. He submits that without the decision of the college committee, the educational agency is not empowered to place the petitioner under suspension. He would further submit that the college committee, as per the communication, dated 16.03.2012, the college committee is to be convened only on 22.03.2012.

(3.) CONSIDERING the circumstances, there shall be an order of interim stay for a period of two weeks. List the matter for counter and disposal after two weeks.