Madras High Court
G.Manaoharan vs The Commissioner on 26 September, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD)Nos.8672 to 8676, 8700 to 8702,
8693 & 8694 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)Nos.8672 to 8676, 8700 to 8702,
8693 & 8694 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.6580, 6582, 6584, 6586, 6588, 6597, 6599,
6602, 6604 & 6606 of 2017
W.P.(MD)No.8672 of 2017:
G.Manaoharan : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Chennai – 34.
2.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Samy Thirukovil,
Palani – 624 601.
3.The Correspondent,
Arulmigu Palaniandavar Polytechnic College,
Palani,
Dindigul District.
(The Deputy Commissioner,
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Thirukovil, Palani).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.(MD)Nos.8672 to 8676, 8700 to 8702,
8693 & 8694 of 2017
4.The Principal,
Arulmigu Palaniandavar Polytechnic College,
Palani,
Dindigul District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second
respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3673/2017/I1/
dated 20.02.2017 and quash the same as illegal and consequently
direct the second and third respondents not to follow the procedure
of artificial break of service in future in our employment.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr.R.Murali
Standing Counsel
[In all Writ Petitions]
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order
passed by the second respondent dated 20.02.2017, rejecting the
request of the respective petitioners seeking not to adopt the break
of service policies during summer holidays and other holidays.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.8672 to 8676, 8700 to 8702,
8693 & 8694 of 2017
2.Under the impugned orders, the request of the petitioners
has been rejected on the ground that the respective petitioners were
appointed only on temporary basis and since they are also working in
a self-financing course, the question of considering their request
does not arise.
3.Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and in
paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have given
a tabular column with regard to the ground strength for the
respective courses in which the respective petitioners are doing
services either as Teachers or non-teaching staff. According to the
respondents, salary to the staff working in the self-supporting
courses are being paid from the fees collected from the students
studying in the said course.
4.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent
college would also submit that due to the reduced strength in the
self-supporting courses, it is not possible for the college to pay salary
for the teaching and non-teaching staff during summer holidays and
other vacations fixed for the college.
5.However, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.8672 to 8676, 8700 to 8702,
8693 & 8694 of 2017
that since the salary is paid by the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department as the said department is having control
over the respondent college, the reason given for rejection of the
petitioners' request under the impugned orders is arbitrary and
contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in
the case of Rattanlal and others Vs. State of Haryana and
others reported in AIR 1987 SC 478, wherein it has been held that
appointment of teachers on ad hoc basis at commencement of year
and terminating their services before summer vacation is arbitrary
and it is not a sound personnel policy as it is bound to have serious
repercussions on the educational institutions and the children
studying there.
6.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the
aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the said
ad hoc policy being followed by the State Government for a long
period has lead to the breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and such situation cannot be permitted to last
any longer.
7.However, as seen from the aforesaid decision relied upon
by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it pertains to the State
Government employees. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also drew
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.8672 to 8676, 8700 to 8702,
8693 & 8694 of 2017
the attention of this Court to another judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Private College
Stop-Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka and
others reported in AIR 1992 SC 677 and would submit that the
said decision will also apply to the respective petitioners herein.
However, as seen from the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was dealing with colleges receiving cent percent grants-in-aid from
the State Government.
8.In the case on hand, the college in which the respective
petitioners are working on temporary basis is a self financing course.
A categorical statement has been made in the counter affidavit filed
by the respondents that the subject courses in which the petitioners
are teaching is a self-financing course. In fact, in the affidavit filed
in support of all these writ petitions, the petitioners themselves have
admitted that they were employed only for working in respect of self-
financing courses though they claim that they do the service for the
aided college as well. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on
temporary basis and were not permanent employees. From the
materials available on record, it is clear that the courses for which
the petitioners are doing services are self-financing courses and the
college does not take any aid from the State Government. There is
no proof produced by the petitioners to show that the courses for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.8672 to 8676, 8700 to 8702,
8693 & 8694 of 2017
which services are rendered by them are funded by the State. The
respondents have also expressed their financial difficulty in the
counter affidavit due to the poor strength of the students to
accommodate the respective petitioners during the summer vacation
and other vacations declared for the college. For the foregoing
reasons, this Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions.
9.Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
26.09.2024
Index :Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes/No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.8672 to 8676, 8700 to 8702,
8693 & 8694 of 2017
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Chennai – 34.
2.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Samy Thirukovil,
Palani – 624 601.
3.The Correspondent,
Arulmigu Palaniandavar Polytechnic College,
Palani,
Dindigul District.
(The Deputy Commissioner,
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Thirukovil, Palani).
4.The Principal,
Arulmigu Palaniandavar Polytechnic College,
Palani,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.8672 to 8676, 8700 to 8702,
8693 & 8694 of 2017
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
MR
W.P.(MD)Nos.8672 to 8676, 8700 to 8702,
8693 & 8694 of 2017
26.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
