1. This Writ Appeal arises out of the order in W.P.No.14167/1995 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition under which the Appellant has sought for quashing G.O.(Vamayam) No.725 dated 25.09.1995.
2. Brief facts are that 3rd Respondent College is a private College which falls within the meaning of Sec.2(8) of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Due to the irregularities committed by the Management, the College was taken over by the Government vide G.O.No.1476 Education dated 16.7.1981 under Sec.30 of the Act. The administration of the College was with the Government till 16.7.1996. The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education was the care taker of the College from 17.7.1981 to till the formation of Vellore region. The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education/Joint Director of Collegiate Education of the region discharged the duties of the Secretary of the Private Aided College in the capacity as care taker of the College since the administration of the College was taken over by the Government.
3. Appellant-Venkatesan was appointed as Attender in 3rd Respondent-Dhanabakkiam Krishnasamy Mudaliar Women's College, Vellore with effect from 02.6.1976 and promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 03.12.1987. The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Madras Region through his Proceedings dated 12.09.1990 had ordered that Appellant was promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 28.10.1987 retrospectively but without monetary benefit.
4. Fourth Respondent was appointed as Attender on 02.07.1973 and promoted as Store Keeper w.e.f. 01.02.1977. Fourth Respondent was subsequently reverted as Attender (Laboratory) with effect from 01.6.1977 by the Management of the College and then reverted as Peon on 01.08.1977. Subsequently, 4th Respondent was promoted as Attender (Laboratory) with effect from 01.03.1978 by the Management and the 4th Respondent was again promoted as Junior Assistant and Assistant with effect from 20.4.1983 and 28.10.1987 respectively. By the Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 12.9.1990, 4th Respondent was reverted as Junior Assistant with effect from 28.04.1983.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 12.9.1990 of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, 4th Respondent has preferred appeal before the Government under Sec.20 of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. Government set aside the order of the Dy. Director of Collegiate Education dated 12.9.1990 and passed orders in G.O.No.725 dated 25.9.1995. Challenging the said G.O.No.725 dated 25.9.1995, Appellant has preferred the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, Appellant has contended that he has been holding the post of Assistant in the 3rd Respondent's College and that he got such a post after a long drawn battle and that the impugned Government Order is ex facie illegal and unsustainable.
6. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter contending that the recorded evidence prove that 4th Respondent was appointed as Attender on 02.07.1973 and far senior to the Appellant who was appointed as Attender on 02.06.1976. It was further averred that the appeal was disposed considering the circumstances of the case.
7. The learned single Judge held that 4th Respondent is 2= years senior than the Appellant in the cadre of Attender and his service was also already regularised. In his report, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education has stated that Government may decide the seniority of the 4th Respondent based on the regularisation of his service and therefore, the Government has rightly set aside the order of 2nd Respondent and found that the 4th Respondent is senior than the Appellant and on those findings, dismissed the Writ petition which is challenged in this Appeal.
8. 4th Respondent died. The subject matter of challenge in G.O.No.725 dated 25.09.1995 passed by the 2nd Respondent and therefore, steps in respect of 4th Respondent was dispensed with.
9. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for Appellant mainly contended that under Section 39 (2) (i) of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act 1976, Appellate Authority should give an opportunity of making their representation and the impugned order was passed by the 1st Respondent without affording opportunity to the Appellant. It was further contended that when the order of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education has been interfered, as per Section 39 (2) (i) of the Act, Appellate Authority ought to have afforded an opportunity to the Appellant and the impugned order is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that as against the order of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Appeal lies before the Director of Collegiate Education and while so, 1st Respondent-State Government was not justified in reversing the order passed by the 2nd Respondent-Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education.
10. Mr.G.Shankaran, learned Special Government Pleader [Education] submitted that 4th Respondent was appointed as Attender on 02.7.1973 and 4th Respondent was far senior to the Appellant and reversion of 4th Respondent was not in order and therefore, 1st Respondent has rightly set aside the order of 2nd Respondent.
11. The details of appointment and promotion of Appellant-Venkatesan and 4th Respondent-Loganathan are as under:- Loganathan [4th Respondent]
Venkatesan [Appellant]
Post w.e.f.
Post w.e.f.
Appointed as Attender : 02.07.1973
Promoted as Storekeeper : 01.02.1977
Reverted as Attender : 01.06.1977
Reverted as Peon : 01.08.1977
Promoted as Attender : 01.03.1978
Promoted as Jr. Asst. : 20.04.1983
Promoted as Assistant : 28.10.1987
Again reverted as Jr. Asst : 20.04.1983
(consequent upon promotion of appellant)
Appointed as Attender : 02.06.1976
Promoted as Jr. Asst. : 03.12.1987
Promoted as Jr. Asst. : 20.04.1983
Promoted as Assistant : 28.10.1987
(By the Proceedings of Dy. Director)
12. It is seen from the above particulars that 4th Respondent was appointed as Attender on 02.7.1973 and was regulalrised in that position even from 02.7.1973, whereas Appellant was appointed as Attender from 02.6.1976 and 4th Respondent was far senior to the Appellant. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellant submitted that due to certain irregularities, 4th Respondent was reverted as Attender on 01.06.1977 and again reverted as Peon on 01.08.1977 and thereafter promoted as Attender on 01.3.1978 and therefore, the seniority of 4th Respondent has to be construed only w.e.f. 01.3.1978 and not from 02.7.1973.
13. The above contention of the learned Senior Counsel does not merit acceptance. As pointed out earlier, 4th Respondent was appointed as Attender on 02.7.1973 and was regularised w.e.f. 02.7.1973. Even if on account of certain irregularities the 4th Respondent was so reverted to the post of Attender on 01.6.1977, he was again restored to the position of Attender and his seniority stands revived from 02.7.1973. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the seniority of 4th Respondent has to be construed only w.e.f. 01.3.1978.
14. Main contention of Appellant is that while passing the impugned order reversing the Proceedings of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, no opportunity was given to the Appellant by the 1st Respondent and the impugned order is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellant has drawn our attention to Section 39 (2) (i) of the Act that it is mandated upon the Appellate Authority to give the parties an opportunity of making their representations and the impugned order is vitiated in view of violation of principles of natural justice. Section 39 (2) (i) of the Act states that Appellate Authority to give the parties an opportunity of making their representations. Section 39 (2) (iii) of the Act states that Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal considering all the circumstances of the case, make such order as it deems just and equitable. The material on record showed that 4th Respondent was appointed as Attender on 02.07.1973 and his services was also regularised w.e.f. 02.07.1973 and he was far senior to the Appellant who was appointed as Attender on 02.06.1976. In such facts and circumstances of the matter under Section 39 (2) (iii) of the Act, considering all the circumstances of the case, 1st Respondent has passed G.O.No.725 dated 25.09.1995 setting aside the order of 2nd Respondent and the order cannot said to be vitiated.
15. Requirements of natural justice depend upon the circumstances of each case, nature of enquiry, subject matter that is being dealt with. Whenever a complaint is made to the Court on violation of principles of natural justice, Court has to decide whether observance of that rule was necessary for just decision on the facts of that case. Rules of natural justice are flexible and its application. depends upon setting and background of each case.
16. In the instant case facts are Writ large. 4th Respondent was far senior to the Appellant. When the junior was promoted as Junior Assistant and placed above the 4th Respondent, the same was patently not in order. When the facts were Writ large, issuance of notice to the Appellant and further hearing may not have been necessitated. There is no force in the contention of Appellant that because of non-affording of opportunity, prejudice was caused to him. We find no reason for interference with the order of learned single Judge.
17. We may however refer to the subsequent developments. At the time of filing of Writ Appeal, Appellant obtained interim stay. Pursuant to the interim order, Appellant continued to remain in the same position as Assistant and now the Appellant is said to have attained the age of superannuation. In so far as the 4th Respondent, 4th Respondent is said to have passed away. In such circumstances, nothing survives on merits in this Appeal.
18. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs. The 4th Respondent shall be entitled to the necessary benefits pursuant to G.O.Ms.725 dated 25.09.1995. Appellant is entitled to retirement benefits as per rules.