CHINNARAJ JOSEPH JAIKUMAR; GOVERNING COUNCIL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE; GOVERNING COUNCIL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE Vs. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The American College Madurai is a Minority Educational Institution. It is run by a Society known as "the Governing Council of the American College, Madura" registered on 27.6.1934 under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner herein became the Principal/Secretary of the College, on 22.05.2006. The fourth respondent is the Bishop, Church of South India, Madurai and Ramnad Diocese, and a member of the College Governing Council. The fifth respondent is the Vice-Principal of the College.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner applied to the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai for permission for 24 days to go abroad on a private visit commencing from 09.04.2008. The said application was made as early as on 14.03.2008. The Director, in turn, by means of his proceedings dated 11.04.2008, granted such permission to him with effect from 09.04.2008. Admittedly, the said order was signed by the Director on 17.04.2008 and the same was allegedly served on the petitioner only on 19.04.2008. In the meanwhile, according to the petitioner, he sent a letter on 12.04.2008 itself to the Joint Director of the Collegiate Education, thereby withdrawing his request for permission as he could not undertake the tour as per the programme on 09.04.2008 as permission was not granted in time. Since,he did not receive any intimation from the authorities concerned granting him permission till 08.04.2008, he put up in the notice board of the College on 08.04.2008 itself informing the cancellation of the tour.

(3.) While so, it is stated by the fourth respondent that on 10.04.2008 itself, a letter was given to the then Vice-Principal of the College who is the fifth respondent herein, as the petitioner was on leave, to take additional charge as Principal of the College with effect from 09.04.2008. It is alleged by the respondents 4 and 5 that accordingly, the fifth respondent took charge forthwith. The petitioner alleges that on 12.04.2008, the fifth respondent locked the office of the Principal and tried to prevent him from entering into the office and to discharge his functions as Principal. As a result, there was a commotion in the College premises. However, according to the petitioner, he managed to remove the lock, opened the door and returned to his office. He further claims that he continued to act as Principal of the College.