SURESH MANOHAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order of suspension issued on 28.7.2003, by the 3rd respondent.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.No.24556/2003 is working as a Selection Grade lecturer in Mathematics and the petitioner in W.P.No.24559/2003 is working as a Selection Grade lecturer in English at the 3rd respondent college which is an aided institution. The petitioners were suspended from service on 17.7.2003 by the 3rd respondent, as they have not attended duty on 3.7.2003. Subsequently, a perusal of the explanation given by the petitioners and other persons who were suspended along with the petitioners, the order of suspension dated 17.3.2003 was revoked. Thereafter, under the impugned order dated 28.7.2003, referring to the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 26.7.2003, it was informed to the petitioners that they could not be reinstated and so they are directed not to sign attendance register and not to engage classes till further orders. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the 3rd respondent-college is an aided institution, the powers can be exercised either by the Government or by the 3rd respondent only, as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter called 'the Act', and the Rules made thereunder. Referring to Sec.10 of the Act, learned Senior Counsel submitted that power to give direction, is only to implement the provisions of the Act and not to exercise the powers contrary to the scope of the Act. Referring to Sec.19 of the Act, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the order of suspension can be made only for two months and if for any reason, it can be extended for further two months, if in the opinion of the competent authority, the enquiry should not be completed within the said period of two months, that too, for the reasons directly attributable to a teacher or such person. In effect, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the 2nd respondent-director has no jurisdiction to give direction to the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioners to work in the 3rd respondent-college. The power given under the Act to give directions cannot be traced to issue the direction now impugned in these writ petitions.