Madras High Court
Rev.D.Soundarapandiyan vs The Correspondent on 8 August, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A(MD)No.1345 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A(MD)No.1345 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.10493 and 10494 of 2024
Rev.D.Soundarapandiyan ... Appellant/Writ petitioner
-vs-
1.The Correspondent,
Sarah Tucker College,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Director of College Education,
DPI Compound,
College Road, Chennai.
3.The Regional Director of College Education,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
4.Rev Dr.ARGST, Barnabas,
Bishopstowe,
No.15, North High Ground Road,
Palayamkottai - 627 002,
Tirunelveli District.
5.S.Gnanathiraviam,
Secretary,
Standing Committee on Higher Education,
St. Johns's College Boys Hostel Campus,
North High Ground Road,
Diocesan Office,
Palayamkottai – 627 002. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
Page 1 of 10
W.A(MD)No.1345 of 2024
22.07.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.2211 of 2024.
For Appellant : Mr.N.L.Rajah, Senior Counsel for
Ms.M.Murugeswari
For R-1 : Mr.V.Prabhakar, Senior Counsel for
Mr.V.S.Kishok Kumar
For R-2 & R-3 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
For R-4 : Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan
For R-5 : Mr.M.Mohaboob Athiff
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order of the learned single Judge
upholding the removal of the appellant as the Secretary-cum-Correspondent of
Sarah Tucker College, Palayamkottai.
2. The writ Court had dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that
the Diocese of Tirunelveli’s Constitution stipulates that the tenure of the
Correspondent shall not exceed one year.
3. Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would
attempt to make a difference between the Secretary and the Correspondent.
4. We are of the considered opinion that the writ petition itself is not
maintainable since the issue relates to appointment or nomination of a Secretary
of a private minority institution. It will not be a question that could be answered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Reliance is placed by Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel on the recent
decision of a Full Bench of this Court where one of us (R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) was a
party in D.Bright Joseph vs. Church of South Indian(CSI) Synod Secretariat,
represented by its General Secretary and Others reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine Mad 286, to sustain the writ petition.
6. Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel draw our attention to the
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in St. Mary's Education
Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498, where at
Paragraph Nos.75.2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
“75.2. Even if it be assumed that an educational institution is
imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a direct
nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public
law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ.
Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any
public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ
petition under Article 226. Wherever Courts have intervened in their
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, either the service conditions
were regulated by the statutory provisions or the employer had the
status of “State” within the expansive definition under Article 12 or it
was found that the action complained of has public law element.”
7. After considering such observations, the Full Bench in D.Bright Joseph's
case, has concluded on maintainability of writ petitions against the Church of
South India under whom the Tirunelveli Diocese has functioned, in paragraph No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
32 which reads as follows:
“32.
i.the respondents 1 and 2 are running 2300 schools, 150 colleges
and 104 hospitals in India. Therefore, the public duty that they
discharge falls within the contours of Article 21 and 21A of the
Constitution of India.
ii.The Courts have emphasized that educational institutions
which nurture and develop young minds should ensure quality
education and high standards of integrity to the persons
passing through their institutes. Therefore, persons
administering and managing these institutions should be above
board.
iii.Since the educational institutions run by respondents 1 and
2, both aided as well as unaided, are bound by statutory
regulations of varying degrees, they are amenable to the writ
jurisdiction. Any act of the management who are in
administration of these institutes / hospitals likely to bring
down the standards of both education as well as medical
services can be challenged by any person invoking the rights
under Article 226 and in that sense, respondents 1 and 2 would
fall within the category of any person or authority as described
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
iv.The educational agency of the institutions run by the first
respondent is the Synod and the Constitution of the Synod has
a direct impact on the quality and standards of the educational
institutions/hospitals. Therefore, any act impairing / impacting
the process of electing the Synod would have a direct impact on
the quality and standard of these institutions/hospitals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
v.Apart from running educational institutions, respondents 1
and 2 are also maintaining churches and discharging functions
of the clergy. These functions are outside the scope of judicial
review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
vi.A person aggrieved by the acts of respondents 1 and 2
relating to the above can definitely move this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to ensure the due compliance of
this public duty.”
8. We find that the question that arises in the writ petition namely the
removal of Secretary does not come out of any of the classes of writ petitions
which could be entertained by this Court against a private minority management.
However, Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel would implore us to invoke Rule 9
of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, which reads as
follows:
“9. Secretary of the committee.
(1)The educational agency shall nominate one of its
representatives as Secretary of the committee:Provided that it shall
be open to the educational agency, to nominate the Principal as
Secretary of the committee.
(2)The term of office of the Secretary shall ordinarily be three
years. However, he/she shall be eligible for renomination for
subsequent terms. If the educational agency intends to change the
Secretary within the period of three years, it shall do so only with
the prior approval of the Director.Application for approval of change
in the Secretaryship shall be made to the Director in Form 6.
(3)The Secretary shall function for and on behalf of the
committee and educational agency.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
(4)The Secretary shall act according to the resolutions passed
at the meeting of the committee.
(5)The Secretary shall not interfere in the internal
administration of the college such as admission, examination,
promotion of student and other academic matters as also the
administration of the special fee funds, which shall be made the
exclusive responsibility of the Principal.
(6) The Secretary shall be responsible for the maintenance, of
proper and accurate accounts and the administration of college
funds except special fee funds.”
9. His contention is that there is a violation of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 9 of the
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, which makes the prior approval of
the Direcor as mandatory for removal of the Secretary.
10. Mr.V.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the caveator
would submit that these Rules will not apply to a private minority college or a
college under the minority management. Reliance is placed upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
answering question No.5(c) which reads as follows:
“Q.5.(c) Whether the statutory provisions which regulate the
facets of administration like control over educational agencies,
control over governining bodies, conditions of affiliation including
recognition/withdrawal thereof, and appointment of staff,
employees, teachers and principals including their service
conditions and regulation of fees etc., would interfere with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
right of administration of minorities?
had observed as follows:
“Regulations can be framed governing service conditions
for teaching and other staff for whom aid is provided by the
State without interfering with overall administrative control of
management over the staff, government/university
representative can be associated with the Selection Committee
and the guidelines for selection can be laid down. In regard to
unaided minority educational institutions such regulations, which
will ensure a check over unfair practices and general welfare of
teachers could be framed.”
11. The above pronouncement is clear and categoric to the effect that the
Rules relating to appointment of Secretary and Correspondent will not bind a
minority institution and the same cannot be invoked by the Secretary of the
minority institution to challenge his removal.
1. Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel would however contend that the
provisions of Rule 9(3)(4)(5)(6) are within the powers of the State
Government recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai
Foundation case. We are unable to agree for the simple reason that the
above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clear and categoric to
the effect that regulations can be framed if they come within the parameters
suggested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The very post is being outside the
purview of the power, we do not think that we can accept the arguments of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
Mr.N.L.Rajah.
13. We are therefore, constrained to conclude that the very writ petition
itself is not maintainable and the order of the learned single Judge is sustained,
though for different reasons. The Writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
08.08.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes
PM
To:
1.The Director of College Education,
DPI Compound,
College Road, Chennai.
2.The Regional Director of College Education,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
pm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
08.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
