AYYA NADAR JANAKI AMMAL COLLEGE Vs. A PANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition raises an interesting question as to the scope, ambit and interpretation of Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Private colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Private colleges Act ). THE petitioner is a college at Sivakasi. THE first respondent was employed as a demonstrator in Chemistry. He was appointed as a probationer in the subject Chemistry by an order dated 6. 8. 1977 of the petitioner. THE appointment was a temporary one for the academic year 1977-78 which ended on 31. 5. 1978. THE first respondent's service came to an end on the expiry of the academic year 1977- 78. In the academic year 1978-79, a regular vacancy arose in the petitioner's college. THE first respondent was appointed in the post of demonstrator of Chemistry with effect from 5. 7. 1978, and the first respondent also joined duty on 5. 7. 1978. THE first respondent was taken in as a probationer for a period of 2 years with effect from 5. 7. 1978. An agreement in Form 7a prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Pri vate colleges Rules, 1976 was entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent on 2. 1. 1979. THE petitioner extended the period of probation of the first respondent for a further period of one year from 5. 7. 1980, by its order dated 8. 5. 1980. THE petitioner college considered the case of the first respondent for confirmation of his probation and decided not to confirm him in his post by its order dated 1. 7. 1981. THE first respondent was also relieved from service with effect from 4. 7. 1981.

(2.) THE first respondent preferred an appeal before the second respondent against the order of termination of his service. THE second respondent upheld the order of termination holding that the priod of probation prescribed by the petitioner- college is not in any way contrary to the agreement in Form 7a and it is not necessary for the petitioner-college to obtain prior approval of the competent authority before terminating the services of the probationer.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Jagadeesan v. Ayya Nadar janaki Ammal College, 1981 (II) M. L. J 415 wherein the Division Bench of this court has held that the words,' otherwise terminated' in section 19 (1) of the Act, should be read ejusdem generis with the preceding words,' dismissal, removal or reduced in rank' and where the order of termination does not ex facie disclose any stigma or penal consequences, it is not an order of punitive termination and such a termination does not fall within the scope of Section 19 (1) of the Act. LEARNED counsel referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in S. Jagadeesan v. A. N. J. A. College & another, 1983 (II) L. L. J. 190 which arose on an appeal from the decision of this Court in Jagadeesan' s case, 1983 (II) L. L. J. 190. Before the Supreme Court, it was contended that the observation of this Court on the scope of the words,' otherwise terminated' under Section 19 (1) of the Act, runs counter to the observation of Chandrachand C. J. in All Saints High School' s case, A. I. R. 1980 s. C. 1042 and so, the decision was not correct. The Supreme Court referred to the observations of Kailasam, J. in All Saints High School' s case, A. I. R. 1980 s. C. 1042 and the question regarding the scope of the words,' otherwise terminated' in Section 19 (1) of the act was left open to be decided by the prescribed authority along with other questions involved. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court, without expressing any opinion on its correctness or otherwise. From this, learned counsel contended that if in All Saints High School' s case, A. I. R. 1980 s. C. 1042 the Supreme Court has already decided that the prior approval of competent authority was required even to a case, where service of the probationer was terminated, then there was no necessity for the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment of this Court. LEARNED senior counsel submitted that since the question was not decided in All Saints High School' s case, A. I. R. 1980 s. C. 1042 the question was left open by the Supreme Court in Jagadeesan' s case, 1983 (II) M. L. J 190 and hence, the view of the Tribunal that the decision in All Saints High school' s case, a. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1042 would form the basis, cannot be sustained in law.