Madras High Court
The Secretary vs K.Saravanan on 18 February, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1147 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1147 of 2018
and C.M.P.(MD) No.8203 of 2018
The Secretary,
Sri.K.G.S. Higher Secondary School,
Aduthurai,
Thanjavur District. ... Appellant/Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.K.Saravanan
2.The Joint Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.11813 of 2010, dated 04.10.2016.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.Thirumurthy
For Respondent No.2 : Mrs.S.Srimathy
Special Government Pleader
*****
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.1147 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J)
The 1st respondent was appointed as Assistant Headmaster with the
appellant and he was working in the said capacity. Charges were framed against
him and proved, resulting in his dismissal and approval was sought under
Section 22(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973 by the
appellant, which was accordingly granted. An appeal was filed against the
dismissal of respondent No.1 before respondent No.2/appellate authority. The
order of dismissal passed by the appellant and the approval given by the Chief
Educational Officer were set aside by the appellate authority inter alia holding
that the punishment is disproportionate to the charge. The appellant for the
reasons best known to him, approached the very same authority, who has passed
the order, and the said authority reversed the order without giving notice to the
first respondent. This order was put to challenge before the learned Single
Judge. Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition on the ground of want of
notice and non-compliance of the adequate procedure. Challenging the same,
the present appeal has been filed.
2.Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
first order passed by the appellate authority is in nullity and therefore, there is
no question of issuing notice of hearing. Inasmuch as the order passed was
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1147 of 2018
wrong, the reversal of the order cannot be found fault with. Thus, the said order
cannot be questioned and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge
warrants interference. Incidentally, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge
observed that the charges framed as such comes under Chapter 5 Tamil Nadu
Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973 and not Chapter 8.
3.Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the order which
inure to the benefit of respondent No.1 has been reversed without notice, in the
absence of power of review to the appellate authority.
4.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials placed on record.
5.We do not find any merit in this appeal, though the reasons assigned
by the learned Single Judge by placing reliance on Chapter 8 may not be
correct. Power of review is a creature of the statute. In the case on hand, the
appeal was filed, challenging the order of dismissal, as approved by the
approving authority. The order of dismissal and the permission granted for the
dismissal was found to be wrong by the appellate authority. When a power is
given to the appellate authority to go into the entire issues involving the order
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1147 of 2018
of removal and permission for removal and having exercised the power, in the
absence of any power of review, ought not to have undertaken that exercise and
that too, without notice to respondent No.1. Such an order passed has got a civil
consequences, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. In such view of the
matter, we are inclined to confirm the order of the learned Single Judge.
6.In such view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed, making it
clear that it is well open to the appellant to proceed pursuant to the order of
remand passed by the appellate authority at the first instance. The entire
exercise shall be completed within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. Inasmuch as the respondent has reached the
superannuation, the question of reinstatement per se would not arise.
Consequently, connected C.M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.
Index :Yes/No [M.M.S.J.,] [S.A.I.J.,]
Internet :Yes/No 18.02.2021
sj
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1147 of 2018
To
The Joint Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.1147 of 2018
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
sj
W.A.(MD)No.1147 of 2018
18.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
