C RANGANATHAN Vs. PRESIDENT/ SECRETARY OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF MARUTHAMALAI SRI SUBRAMANYA DEVASTHANAM HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VADAVATHI COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for the issue of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent in che. Mu. Na. Ka. No. 660/94/a5, dated 18. 3. 1996 and direct the 1st respondent to continue the petitioner on duty with all benefits from 18. 3. 1996.

(2.) THE petitioner is holding the post of Headmaster in Maruthamalai Sri Subramanya Devasthanam Higher Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the school ). THE petitioner claims that he had worked hard in improving the school and there has been achievements on academic side. It has been stated that the present Deputy Commissioner who is the secretary of the School Committee is having grudge against the petitioner due to confrontation on various aspects in the day-to-day administration of the school, admission of the boys, holding of examination etc. It is not necessary to set out the particulars regarding the alleged confrontation between the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner at this stage. It is sufficient to refer to the contents set out in paragraphs 3 to 5 the affidavit at the appropriate time.

(3.) IN the additional counter affidavit with respect of passing of resolution the 1st respondent has set out thus: I submit that I have already filed a counter affidavit, wherein which an important factor has not been specifically stated though a reference has been made in the counter affidavit. Hence, this additional counter affidavit. I submit that the impugned order of suspension was virtually subsequent to a circular resolution of the school committee dated 17. 3. 1996. The said circular resolution has been passed by six of the committee members and three of the committee members voted against the resolution. A copy of the resolution dated 17. 3. 1996 has been included in the typed set of papers which may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit. The decision of the honourable Court in this regard, therefore, has no application to the facts of the case. It is further necessary to submit that the said impugned order of suspension was subsequently also ratified by the next committee meeting held on 27. 3. 1996, wherein which the same three members have not subscribed to the resolution and the other six members have passed the resolution:"