P A K PALANISAMY HIGH SCHOOL Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION SECONDARY AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SEC 23 OF THE TAMIL NADU RECOGNISED PRIVATE SCHOOLS REGULATIONS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the Management of P. A. K. Palanisamy High school, at Madras and it seeks for quashing the order of the first respondent being the joint Director of School Education, Madras dated 30. 6. 1979, only in so far as it enforces a condition to pay back wages i. e. , pay and allowances with all the benefits from the date of removal upto the date of reinstatement of the concerned teachers from the funds of the Management without any claim from the Government funds and for a direction to issue to the 2nd respondent to sanction the payment of staff grant to 18 teachers reinstated in service by the petitioner for the period from 21. 4. 1979 to 17. 7. 1979.

(2.) THE petitioner-Management claims as follows: In 1979, there was gross and unprecedented indiscipline among several teachers handling standards IX and X in the petitioner' ; s school, and it went to the extent of themselves enabling students to indulge in mass-copying in the examinations and several other acts of indiscipline being committed. THErefore, the Management decided to close the Standards IX and X and accordingly issued notices to 18 teachers informing that the said two standards would be closed for the academic year 1979-80, and therefore, their services were no longer required on and from the reopening date. THE notices were issued on 20. 4. 1979, and they were offered to be paid their salary till the date of notice. THE first respondent by his order dated 23. 4. 1979 asked the petitioner to put forth its, representations on the notices issued, and accordingly it gave its, representations. THE Director of School Education by proceedings dated 3. 5. 1979 directed the petitioner to continue to function the said two standards. Petitioner put orth its representations and the same authority by an order dated 23. 5. 1979 cancelled its proceedings dated 3. 5. 1979, being satisfied with what the petitioner had done. It appears that appeals were filed by teachers against the closure notices, and the first respondent by proceedings dated 17. 5. 79, called upon the petitioner to offer its remarks on the appeal petitions, and it gave its representations on 30. 5. 79, whereupon the first respondent by proceedings dated 30. 6. 79 directed the petitioner to reinstate the teachers into service with all back wages and benefits from the date of removal, i. e. , 20. 4. 1979 up to the date of reinstatement, from the' ; funds of the Management without any claim from the Government funds. Petitioner complied with the directions so issued and restored the teachers into service by the reopening date and also paid them the back wages. THEreafter, the petitioner made a claim for the teachers grant to be paid to cover the amounts disbursed by it under orders of the educational authority, but the department had not paid the amount, because the first respondent has ordered' ; that there should be no claim from the Government funds' ; for the period in question. This order is beyond the powers of the appellate authority under Sec. 23 of the Tamil Nadu recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. THE power to withhold the grant either permanently or for any specified period, is exclusively conferred only on the Government under Sec. 14 of the Act, and if it is to be withheld, it could be only after extending an opportunity, as provided under Sec. 14 (3) of the Act. THE closure notice was issued on the last working date for the academic year 1978-79 and on the reopening date i. e. , 18. 7. 1979 all the teachers have been reinstated, and there being no break in service for them, withholding of grant for the said period was not correct, because whatever steps had been taken by the management having proved to be ineffective, and finally, the service conditions of the teachers having remained unaffected, in that the Management had obeyed the orders of the educational authority promptly the first respondent had acted beyond his jurisdiction in preventing the petitioner from securing the teaching grant.

(3.) ON the contention put forth by respondents that under sec. 43 (3) the appellate authority has the jurisdiction to pass such orders as it deems fit, the direction issued by him was not pending disposal of an appeal before it. When the direction issued is part of the final order, it would not come within the ambit of Sec. 43 (3 ).