R. MARIANTONY Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the third respondent -the Management of the Orappanavillai High School, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil relating to their proceedings No. 16 of 1969 -70, dated 30th July, 1975, of the second respondent - the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education) relating to his proceedings D.Dis. No. 183433/G7/75, dated 15th April, 1976 and of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent, relating to their memo. No. 90489/D1/76, dated 18th December, 1976 and quashing the orders in the memo. dated 18th December, 1976 and for passing further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as Headmaster in the third respondent -High School. Disciplinary proceedings were started against him on 16th September, 1966. During the pendency of those proceedings the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 came into force. On 13th July, 1975 the petitioner's services were terminated by the third respondent on the basis of the finding in the enquiry held against him in the said disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner filed an appeal under the said Act before the second respondent, the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education) evidently under Section 23 of the Act (against the order of dismissal passed under Section 22 of the Act) without however mentioning the provision of law under which the appeal was filed. The appeal was dismissed by the second respondent on 15th April, 1976. Without preferring a second appeal to the Tribunal constituted by the Government under Section 42 of the Act, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 45 of the Act as though the appeal filed by him before the second respondent was filed under Section 41 of the Act against the order of the competent authority. The revision petition was dismissed by the Government, the first respondent, on 18th December, 1976 on the ground that the revision petition filed under Section 45 of the Act could not be entertained under the existing rules. This writ petition has been filed for quashing that order.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner requests that some observation may be made in this judgment to enable the appellate tribunal to excuse the delay in filing second appeal under Section 24 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has been wrongly prosecuting the remedies before the Government and this Court. It is not necessary for this Court to make any such observation. It is open to the petitioner to move the tribunal for excusing the delay by setting out the various circumstances and it is entirely for the tribunal to decide whether the delay could be excused under the proviso to Section 43 of the Act or otherwise having regard to the various circumstances of the case. There is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed with the third respondent's costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. Respondents 1 and 2 will bear their respective costs.