LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-96

S RAJENDRAN Vs. JAWAHAR SCIENCE COLLEGE

Decided On April 03, 2012
K.RAJARAM Appellant
V/S
JAWAHAR SCIENCE COLLEGE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners were teachers working in the first respondent college. The first petitioner is a Lecturer in Mathematics (Selection Grade) and the second petitioner is a Lecturer in Tamil (Selection Grade). Admittedly, the first respondent College is run by a society funded by Neyveli Lignite Corporation and it is an unaided college. Even then this Court has held that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short Act) and the Rules framed thereunder will apply to the petitioner college, which was approved by a Division Bench in respect of the very same college vide judgment reported in 1994 WLR 84 [Jawahar College Staff Association, Neyveli, by its Secretary v. University of Madras and others]. The definition of the term "private college" under Section 2(8) of the Act does not make any distinction between aided or unaided in the matter of closure under the Act. When once it is conceded that the provisions of the Act applies, then so far as the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against any teacher or other person working in such college is governed by Chapter IV of the Act. Under the said Chapter, in terms of Section 18, it is incumbent upon the teacher to abide by the Code of Conduct. Under Section 18(1), any violation of Code of Conduct will result in disciplinary action. Under Section 18(2) of the Act, the College Committee can also define standards of conduct to be observed by teachers and other persons employed in the private college, such standards not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.

(2.) IN the present case, on coming to know that the Management had applied for closure of certain courses, teachers were having protest against their action and there is litigation between the parties. In any event, in both the writ petitions, the challenge is to the show cause memo given to the teachers as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them and they were asked to submit their explanation. It was stated that two teachers were attributing unnecessary motive and alleging malice/vindictiveness on the part of the management in the matter of closure of 5 courses during the year 2007-2008. The teachers were also demanding withdrawal of the cases filed by the Management and were spreading false news against the motive of the Management. It is the stand of the Management that those courses became unviable and there were hardly takers for those courses which necessitated the closure of those courses. However, the justification of the management for initiating with the process of closure is unnecessary in the present case. It has to be seen whether at the stage of show cause notice, the two memos are liable to be interdicted by this Court.

(3.) A perusal of the above code of conduct will clearly show it related to the affairs of the State and nothing to do with any management. In fact the said clause as verbatim extracted from Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The State Government while framing Annexure I had taken care to introduce an exception to the Code of Conduct wherein, the explanation reads thus: "Adoption of legitimate methods of ventilating grievance shall not be considered as criticism of the Government". Therefore, the State has taken care to protect the rights of the teachers to ventilate their grievance.