P R SEETHARAMAN Vs. GOVT OF T N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ petitions, there is no need to encumber the order, with more facts than necessary, because of a formidable proposition, which the real contestant in these writ petitions finds it unsurmountable and which requires countenance in view of the legal position. It is better to refer to the parties either by their names or by their designations, rather than by their array in these two writ petitions, which is dissimilar.

(2.) Madura College, a private college, governed by the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act. 1976, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' offered Post Graduate degree courses also at the relevant point of time and also satisfied the student strength prescribed thereby coming within the rule laid down for having a post of a Manager. On 19-1-1979, the director of Collegiate Education, Mad permitted Madura College to, have the post of Manager on purely temporary basis, for a period up to, 31-5-1979. It must be pointed out that, on the introduction of Plus 2 system in the schools with effect from 1978, and withdrawal of Pre-University course in colleges with effect from June 1979, the prescribed student strength of the Madura College, which enabled it to have a Manager, naturally fell down thereafter. The stand of Madura College is that the order of the Direct a of Collegiate Education dt. 19-1-1979 had this contingency contemplated when it sanctioned the post only up to 31-5-1979. On 25-1-1979 R. Sundaram a Bachelor of Arts, working as a junior assistant in the Madura College, was appointed, on temporary basis, to the post of Manager, Madurai college and he was informed that the post was purely temporary till 31-5-1979 and he would be reverted back to his original post on 1-6-1979 if the post of manager was not continued and if he was interested to accept the offer of appointment, he should join duty in the above post immediately. I am told that R Sundaram joined duty as Manager on 27-1-1979. On 31-5-1979 Madurai College informed R. Sundatam that the post of manager was not continued, since the sanction was given up to 31-5-1979 and accordingly he was reverted back to his original post with effect from 1-6-1979 as junior assistant. It is admitted by Mr. K. Chandru, learned counsel appearing for Mr. R. Sundaram that the order was served on his client on the very same day, viz, 31-5-1979. One G.G. David, general secretary of the Tamil Nadu non-teaching staff Association, Madurai, addressed a letter dt. 10-6-1979, to the Director of Collegiate Education Madras stating that he had received an appeal from R. Sundaram of Madurai college, who was reverted as junior assistant as per order dt. 31-5-1979 and the said G.G. David referred to certain Government Orders providing job security and the necessity to continue the post of the manager in Madurai college and ultimately requested the Director of Collegiate Education to take adequate steps to restore the post of manager to R. Sundaram A copy of the communication is found disclosed in the files produced by Mr. P. Chandrasekharan, Government Advocate, who appears for the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Director of Collegiate Education, Madras It is nobody's case that this communication from G.G. David, for whatever it is worth, ever reached the Government of Tamil Nadu, who is the appellate authority prescribed under R.14 of the Rules framed under the Act, to hear appeals under S.20 of the Act I shall presently refer to S.20 of the Act, since a controversy has been raised with reference to the implications arising from its language. On 11-10-1979, R. Sundaram presented an appeal petition to the Government of Tamil Nadu whereby after setting forth the justification therefor, he prayed for setting aside the order of Madura College, reverting him to the post of Junior Assistant, from post of Manager. In this appeal petition, there is a reference to the appeal given through G.G. David on 10-6-1979, to the Director of Collegiate education. This appeal petition dt. 11-1-1979 necessitated remarks being called for from Madurai college by the Director of Collegiate education, Madura, and Madura college offered its remarks therefor. I am not referring to these proceedings in detail, because in my view, the salient point raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions can be adjudicated even without reference to the factual merits of the case. Ultimately, on 10-3-1983, the Government of Tamil Nadu, department of education, Science and Technology, by the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 448 dt. 10-3-1983, restored R. Sundaram as manager in Madura College retrospectively from 1-6-1979, on the grounds of violation of its proceedings relating to job-security to certain personnel and non-obtaining of the prior approval of the competent authority under the Act; and further directed the Director of Collegiate education to allow the post of Manager in the said college, irrespective of the student strength of the college; and taking note of its proceedings, on the question of job security, laid down that Madura college shall be eligible for the post of Manager only so long as R. Sundaram continues to hold the post The impugned Government Order further directed Madura college to pay R.S. Sundaram the difference in salary between 1-6-1979 till the date of his restoration, from out of their own finance, denying Government grant during the said period, on the ground that Madura College reduced R. Sundaram from his rank, without following the rules. The petitioner in W.P. 5202 of 1983 is Madura College Board and therein the first respondent is the Government of Tamil Nadu, the second respondent is the Director of Collegiate education and the third respondent is R. Sundaram. In W.P. 2616 of 1983, one P.R. Seetharaman, Head clerk of Madura college, is the petitioner and he claims himself to be a competitor for the post of manager in Madura College. In that writ petition the Government of Tamil Nadu is the first respondent the Director of Collegiate Education is the second respondent; Madura College is the third respondent and R. Sundaram is the fourth respondent. In both the writ petitions the same Government Order is the subject matter of impeachment.

(3.) According to the petitioners, against the order dt. 31-5-1979, whereby R. Sundaram was sent back to his original post as junior assistant, no appeal was competent, since the said order cannot fit in wide in the ambit of S.20 of the Act. S.20 of the Act reads as follows