TIRUCHULI HINDU NADAR URAVINMURAI SOCIETY Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the Writ Petitions, the petitioner is a Uravinmurai Society of Tiruchuli Hindu Nadar, which is a registered Society with Registration No.84 of 2000. The deponent of the affidavit claims to be the Secretary of the said Society. In the first Writ Petition, he seeks to challenge the appointment of the third respondent on 09.03.2011 by the then Secretary of the School, the second respondent herein and the consequential approval order granted by the first respondent, the District Educational Officer, Aruppukottai dated 06.06.2011. The said Writ Petition was admitted on 20.04.2012. Pending the Writ Petition, in the application for interim stay, only notice was ordered. On notice from this Court, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, the District Educational Officer, Aruppukottai dated 11.06.2012. The second and third respondents have also filed their respective counter-affidavit together with the typed-set of papers.

(2.) EVEN during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the petitioner has filed the second Writ Petition seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 10.04.2012 and to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent, who is impleaded by name, the District Educational Officer, Aruppukottai. In the representation dated 10.04.2012, the petitioner claims that he was elected as the Secretary of the Society on 06.02.2011 and the School was planning to conduct the selection for the post of Record Clerk. A legal notice was issued and appointment order was given to one S.Rajamanickam by receiving bribe. The appointment has been made without the approval of the Society. Despite representations have been sent, no action has been initiated. He also moved under the Right to Information Act for getting the appointment order given in favour of the said Rajamanickam and it has not been provided to him. He has filed an appeal before the State Information Commission and the Commission made an order on 20.03.2012 to furnish a copy of the appointment order. Therefore, he wanted action to be initiated against one Senthilvel Murugan, now working as the District Elementary Educational Officer, Virudhunagar and Ravimohan, Assistant, District Education Office, Aruppukottai departmentally. When the said Writ Petition came up for admission on 17.8.2012, it was directed to be posted along with the earlier Writ Petition.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner that an appointment made by the School Committee has to be approved by the Educational Agency is not borne out by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. Under Section 18, the power to appoint a teacher or other employee of a private school solely vests with the School Committee. Under Section 18(2), the Educational Agency shall be bound by anything done by the School Committee in the discharge of the functions of that Committee. Under Section 18(3), for the purpose of this Act, any decision or action taken by the School Committee in respect of any matter over which the School Committee has jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be the decision or action taken by the Educational Agency. Therefore, even if the Society has any bye-law, it has got no relevance in respect of the appointment of a teacher or a non-teaching staff. Therefore, the petitioner, claiming to be the Secretary of the Society, cannot interfere with the functioning of the School Committee and the appointment made therein. Besides in this case, subsequent to the appointment, proposals have been sent to the Department and the Department has also approved the appointment and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the said Writ Petition.