Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2964 (MAD)

K. Ezhil v. Chief Educational Officer Cuddalore

2012-07-11

K.CHANDRU

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent Private School. She studied a decree course in B.Lit through Distant Education Mode. 2. The case of the petitioner was that she applied for the decree course only through the Head Master of the School and that, when she applied for the post of B.Lit Teacher, after obtaining the decree, the third respondent not only refused to consider her for the said post, but also issued a show cause notice dated 12.9.2008, calling her explanation, as to why, legal action should not be initiated for obtaining the decree without getting permission from the School Management. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 7.10.2008. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay of further proceedings of the disciplinary action contemplated by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 12.9.2008. There is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent till date. 4. The explanation given bythe petitioner to the show cause notice was that the application for B.Lit decree under Distant Education Mode was sent through only the Head Master and the said fact is not controverted. 5. Even otherwise, Section 21(1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 r/w Rule 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 prescribes 'Code of Conduct for Teachers employed in private schools as specified in Annexure II'. Annexure II says that 'no teacher employed in a private school shall send any application for employment under any other agency except through the school committee of the school'. The Code of Conduct does not prescribe anything relating to sending application for higher education, that too, under Distant Education Mode. 6. In the light of the same and in view of the admitted fact that the application for B.Lit decree was sent by the petitioner only through the Head Master, it is not fit for the third respondent to send show cause notice, calling her explanation and threatening the petitioner with disciplinary action. Hence, the impugned order passed by the third respondent school is clearly unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the impugned order dated 12.9.2008 passed by the third respondent is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Hence, the impugned order passed by the third respondent school is clearly unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the impugned order dated 12.9.2008 passed by the third respondent is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.