K. SWAMIDHAS Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner-K.Swamidhas who was appointed in the 4th respondent School-T.C.K.Higher Secondary School as P.G.Assistant (Maths) on 01.10.1980 and subsequently, promoted as Headmaster on 13.12.1990, challenging the impugned order dated 24.4.2006 passed in Na.Ka.No.079/05 dated 24.4.2006 in and by which he was compulsorily retired from the service of the 4th respondent school.

(2.) (i) The grounds raised by the petitioner to assail the impugned order go to show that when he was ill on 04.9.2003 he applied for medical leave. Due to continuation of illness, he extended his medical leave from time to time, from 2003 for about 2 years 4 months and 8 days, that is from 4.9.2003 to 11.1.2006. In the meanwhile, he was promoted as Headmaster of the 4th respondent school. While he was serving as Headmaster, he suffered a charge-memo issued by the 4th respondent. Challenging the same, he filed O.S.No.43/1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. However, a compromise was reached between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. As a result of compromise, the 4th respondent dropped the charges. Subsequently, when a second charge memo was issued, the petitioner was kept under suspension and challenging the same he filed O.S.No.211/1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. Though during the pendency of Civil Suit, interim injunction was granted and subsequently the same was made absolute, but it is not made known to this Court as to what happened to the said suit now. (ii) When the 4th respondent attempted to appoint another teacher as Headmaster, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7465/1991. By order dated 24.7.1998 this Court, by dismissing the W.P.No.7465/1991, directed the 4th respondent to fill up the post as per law and thereafter, by order in W.A.Nos.935 and 936 of 1998 the same was confirmed and the petitioner's S.L.P. also came to be dismissed. Under these circumstances, the 4th respondent promoted their men as Headmaster and subsequently, the petitioner fell ill and due to his illness he applied for medical leave on 4.9.2003. From 4.9.2003 since the illness continued, he was constrained to extend his medical leave from time to time from 4.9.2003 till 11.1.2006 for about 2 years 4 months and 8 days. Under these circumstances, when the 4th respondent management issued a show cause notice on 24.1.2006, as the petitioner was not able to attend the enquiry, by the impugned order, the 4th respondent has compulsorily retired the petitioner from service on a wrong presumption that he has been running his Jewellery shop and was not interested in joining the service of the 4th respondent school. (iii)The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the 4th respondent school is an aided minority institution. The petitioner was appointed as P.G. Assistant in the year 1980 and subsequently, promoted to the post of Headmaster on 13.12.1990. When the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed on 24.4.2006, the 4th respondent has miserably failed to follow the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulations Act, more particularly, Section 22 which mandates prior approval before any teacher is dismissed, terminated or reverted to the lower post. Moreover, when the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulations Act does not contemplate punishment of compulsory retirement, the impugned order dated 24.4.2006 passed by the 4th respondent school compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service is non-est in the eye of law. (iv)Further, the learned counsel contended that though the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed on 24.4.2006, in view of belated challenge made by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition in the year 2009 with the delay of three years, the backwages need not be paid to the petitioner. However, he prayed for payment of terminal benefits while setting aside the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 24.4.2006 by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent 5 to 7 by filing a counter admitted that there has been some dispute in the management and in view of that direct payment of salary to the persons by the District Educational Officer was ordered. Subsequently, thereafter, there was an attempt made by the Joint Director to arrive at a compromise and the same was failed. Subsequently, now the school authorities are effecting direct payment of salary. The petitioner was reverted from the post of Headmaster. After reversion he could not attend the school for some time or the other and his leave application was not sanctioned by the then Correspondent. Under these circumstances, when he filed Writ Petition, he has completed the age of 58 years and therefore, his prayer for reinstatement is not possible and under these circumstances, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.