D.Kamaraj vs The Director Of School Education
2023 Latest Caselaw 6363 Mad

                                                                           W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020



                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 16.06.2023

                                                    CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                            W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020


                     D.Kamaraj                                                   ... Petitioner
                                                           Vs.


                     1.The Director of School Education,
                       Chennai.

                     2.The Chief Educational Officer,
                       Thoothukudi District,
                       Thoothukudi.

                     3.The District Educational Officer,
                       Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

                     4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
                       Pudur, Vilathikulam Taluk,
                       Thoothukudi District.

                     5.V.Mariappan                                      ... Respondents


                     Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

                     praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the


                     _________
                     Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020



                     records relating to the impugned order dated 03.01.2020 in Na.Ka.No.

                     3140/A2/2019 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and

                     consequentially to direct the third respondent to approve the school

                     committee and Secretaryship of the Hindu Nadar Elementary School,

                     Pudur, Vilathikulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.


                                        For Petitioner    : Mr.J.Barathan

                                        For R1 to R4      : Mr.M.Ramesh
                                                            Government Advocate


                                                           ORDER

The writ petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India, challenging the

impugned order, dated 03.01.2020, in Na.Ka.No.3140/A2/2019, passed

by the third respondent and consequently to direct the third respondent to

approve the school committee and Secretaryship of the Hindu Nadar

Elementary School, Pudur, Vilathikulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

2. The facts which have constrained the petitioner to approach this

Court are as follows:-

(i) It is the case of the petitioner that Hindu Nadar Elementary

School, which is a Government Aided School, is administered by the

Pudur Therku Muthiahpuram Kulakkatankurichi Nadargal Uravinmurai

Kalvi Sangam (hereinafter called as 'the Society'). The Society is duly

registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. It is the

educational agency of the Hindu Nadar Elementary School, Pudur and

the Hindu Nadar High School, Pudur. The Society has been approved by

the respondents as the educational agency for both schools.

(ii) It is the further case of the petitioner that the election in this

Society is conducted once in three years. In the latest election held just

prior to the filing of the writ petition, the office bearers were elected and

the Society had submitted a Form-VII to the Registrar of Societies,

Thoothukudi. This Election had remained unchallenged. Thereafter, in

the meeting convened on 12.04.2018, the petitioner was nominated as the

Secretary, one Sakthivel as the President, R.Murugan, S.Rajendran,

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

A.Senthilkumar and P.Pethuraj were nominated as the members of the

School Committee of Hindu Nadar Elementary School. It was also

resolved that the Headmistress and three senior most teachers and the

representative of the Parent-Teacher Association would be the other

members of the School Committee. This School Committee had

thereafter convened the meeting on 05.06.2018 and appointed the

petitioner as its Secretary.

(iii) The petitioner would further submit that thereafter he had

submitted an application for the approval of the change of constitution of

the School Committee and Secretaryship of the Hindu Nadar Elementary

School, Pudur, to the third respondent on 23.07.2018 enclosing all

necessary documents, that are required for granting the approval. Earlier,

the fourth respondent had passed an order on 11.05.2015 that the writ

petition in WP(MD) No.14541 of 2014 and the suit in O.S.No.48 of 2014

were pending before this Court and the District Munsif Court,

Vilathikulam, respectively. These proceedings have been initiated by the

third party and therefore, it was opined that the fourth respondent could

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

not consider the approval for the years 2015 to 2018. The petitioner had

challenged this Order by filing WP(MD)No.9741 of 2015. Pending the

said writ petition, the suit in O.S.No.48 of 2014 was dismissed after

contest on 04.06.2018 and the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.14541 of

2014 was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.10.2017. As a result, the writ

petition filed by the petitioner in WP(MD) No.9741 of 2015 was

dismissed as infructuous.

(iv) The petitioner would further submit that within the Society

and its members of the school, there was a dispute with reference to the

educational agency and its office bearers. Since the third respondent had

not passed orders on the proposal sent by the petitioner for approval, the

petitioner has filed WP(MD) No.5607 of 2019 seeking a mandamus to

the third respondent to approve the School Committee and Secretaryship

of the Hindu Nadar Elementary School. By order, dated 16.04.2017, this

Court had directed the third respondent to pass orders within a period of

four weeks. Despite this direction, orders were not pronounced, which

prompted the petitioner to file a contempt petition in

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

Cont.P(MD)No.1630 of 2019 to punish the fifth respondent, who is in

charge of the Office of the third respondent. Pending the contempt

petition, on 20.01.2020, the petitioner was served with impugned order,

dated 03.01.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that mere reading of the

impugned order would demonstrate the vendetta on the part of the fifth

respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has moved this Court.

3. A counter has been filed by the third respondent inter alia

justifying the impugned order by stating that there was an earlier dispute

in the administration of the School and a civil suit had been filed by one

Soundrapandian in O.S.No.48 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif

Court, Villathikulam. He had also filed a writ petition for mandamus

directing the first respondent to dispose of the application of the

petitioner dated 17.01.2014 and nominate an officer to discharge the

functions of Educational Agency/School Committee/Secretary of the

Pudur Hindu Nadar Elementary School and Pudur Hindu Nadar High

School. It is at this juncture that a proposal was sent for approval of the

post of Secretary for the period 2015 to 2018. The proposal was

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

originally rejected by the Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Pudur,

taking into account the pendency of the legal proceedings. Meanwhile,

the suit had been dismissed on merits on 04.06.2018 and thereafter, the

said Soundrapandian had withdrawn the writ petition filed by him. The

third respondent would further submit that the rejection of the petitioner's

proposal was in terms of Rule14-A of the Tamil Nadu Government

Servants Conduct Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Conduct Rules')

which stipulated that a person in Government service cannot be a

member of any caste association. The third respondent would further

submit that the Society in respect of which the petitioner was nominated

as the Secretary is the Hindu Nadar Sangam aimed only for uplifting that

Nadar Community. Further, a Teacher cannot become a member of the

caste Sangam. Therefore, the petitioner, who was working as a BT

Assistant in a Government Aided School, cannot be a member of a caste

Sangam, which is totally against the language of Rule 14(A) of the

Conduct Rules. The other allegation made against the petitioner was that

he had, in his earlier Form-VII, declared himself to be a businessman

whereas in the present Form-VII, he has declared himself as a Teacher.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

Further, Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools

(Regulation) Rules prescribed that no Government servant can be a

member of any association. Therefore, it is their contention that the

impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and has to be upheld.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner appearing on behalf of the

petitioner would submit that the first ground of rejection, namely,

violation of the provision of Rule 14-A of the Conduct Rules, would not

apply to the case of the petitioner. He would further submit that a mere

reading of the said Rule would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner's

Association did not indulge in any of the activities set out therein. He

would further submit that invocation of Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu

Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules also, has no application

in the case of the petitioner. As regards the discrepancy in the

description of the petitioner occupation, he would further submit that the

earlier mistake had been taken note of only when submitting this

application and immediately, the same has been rectified by showing the

petitioner as a Teacher. He would further argue that the respondents are

well aware about the occupation of the petitioner, which is evident from

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

the reading the ground of rejection. In support of his contention, he

would rely on the judgment of this Court reported in 2009 SCC Online

Mad 3216 in the case of M.Jahuber Sathik Vs Chairman.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondents 1 to 4 would contend that the petitioner Society is a

community based organization and the petitioner being a Teacher in a

Government Aided School, cannot be encouraged to be a part of such a

society, which is in violation of the provision of Rule14-A of the

Conduct Rules. He would further submit that the Tamil Nadu

Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules provides that the

Teachers and other persons appointed in a private school would be

governed by the code of conduct and that apart, the Teacher or other

person who has violated any of the provisions of the code of conduct,

would be liable for disciplinary action and punishment. He would place

great emphasis on the discrepancy in the occupation of the petitioner

given in the year 2005 and in the year 2015. He would, therefore, justify

the impugned order.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

7. The proposal of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground

that the following discrepancies have been noted:-

(i) Difference in the occupation given earlier by the

petitioner and the present application;

(ii) The petitioner has been working as a B.T.

Assistant in another institution belonging to the Society

from 07.07.1995 and this appointment has been

recognized by the Government and the petitioner was

also being given his remuneration;

(iii) The Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct

Rules contemplates that the Government servant shall not

be a member of any caste or communal organisation; and

(iv) The society has been registered as a caste

based society.

8. The main ground on which the petitioner has not been accorded

an approval is on the ground that he has violated the provisions of Rule

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

14-A of the Conduct Rules. It would, therefore, be necessary to extract

the said provision herein below:-

14.A. Prohibition of membership of any Communal Organisation etc.- (i) No Government servant shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with any organisation.

(a) which promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, race, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility or

(c) which organises any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or knowing it to be likely that the Participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence against any religious, racial, language or regional group or

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community.

(2) If any question arises whether any organisation falls under sub-rule (1), the decision of the Government thereon shall be final.

9. A reading of this provision would bring out the contingencies

which would constitute a prohibition of membership of any communal

organization (a) the society shall not promote or intend to promote

disharmony or ill feeling, enmity, hatred or ill will between the persons

belonging to different religious, race, language or regional groups or

castes or community; (b) where the activities of the society which could

lead to disharmony amongst different religious, racial, language or

regional groups or caste or community; (c) where any physical activities

are organized collectively wherein the members trained to use criminal

force and violence.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

10. A perusal of the impugned order does not spell out as to

whether the Society, in which the petitioner is a member, is indulging in

any of the activities set out in Rule 14(A) of the Conduct Rules or that

the petitioner himself has been indulging in any of the activities. The

language of Rule 14(A) is very clear and there is no embargo on there

being any caste based association which promote and carry out legally

acceptable activities. It is also not being contended by the respondents

that the petitioner association is a banned organization. That apart, the

respondents have recognized the right of the petitioner to hold the post of

Secretary on an earlier occasion. Therefore, the reference to Rule 14(A)

of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules and Rule 16 of

the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, will not

apply to the case on hand. The impugned order appears to be a motivated

one which has been passed as a counterblast to the petitioner filing the

contempt petition.

11. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order

impugned dated 03.01.2020, in Na.Ka.No.3140/A2/2019, passed by the

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

third respondent is set aside. The third respondent is directed to give

approval to the School Committee and Secretaryship of the Hindu Nadar

Elementary School, Pudur, Vilathikulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District,

within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order, if all the required documents are submitted. No costs.

16.06.2023

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes cp

To

1.The Director of School Education, Chennai.

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

3.The District Educational Officer, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District.

4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Pudur, Vilathikulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

P.T.ASHA, J.

cp

W.P.(MD) No.2043 of 2020

Dated: 16.06.2023

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis