Full Judgment
Prayer
Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD) No.394 of 2008 is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 10.04.2008 made in W.P.(MD) No.2494 of 2008 on the file of this Court.
JUDGMENT
R.BANUMATHI,J.
1. The Writ Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 10.04.2008 made in W.P.(MD)No.2494 of 2008, whereby the learned judge dismissed the writ petition and declined to issue writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the appellant's representation dated 23.2.2008 and also declining to issue further directions.
2. The 1st respondent Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act. The society is established for the benefit of Sithurajapuram Melur Kammavar Uravinmurai Naidus. K.K.S.Middle School is administered by the Society. There is a checkered history of litigations regarding the Society and the administration of the School. Earlier, regarding appointment of Headmaster of the School, differences arose between R.Vellaichamy, son of 1st respondent on one hand and R.Arjunan, teaching staff on the other hand, a writ petition came to be filed in W.P.No.14626 of 1997. As per the direction of the High Court, in the said Writ Petition, a selection Committee was ordered to be nominated among the existing members of the School Committee to resolve the dispute of the appointment of the Headmaster. According to the appellant, he was one of the member of the then School Committee and continued to be so.
3. Sithurajapuram Melur Kammavar Uravinmurai represented by the 4th respondent - Govindaraj filed O.S.No.29 of 2001 for declaration that K.K.S.S.Middle School belongs to Kammavar Uravinmurai Society and also for granting permanent injunction restraining the 1st respondent and the educational authorities from interfering with Govindaraj's management of the said School. By the judgment dated 28.1.2004, the said Suit came to be decreed. As against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.29 of 2001, first appeal in A.S.No.15 of 2004 was filed. Setting aside the judgment of the trial Court, the said First Appeal - A.S.No.15 of 2004 was allowed on 28.1.2008. As against A.S.No.15 of 2004, Second Appeal -S.A.No.579 of 2010 was filed and the Second Appeal was also dismissed by the judgment dated 25.3.2011. As against the dismissal of the Second Appeal, 4th respondent has preferred S.L.P. before the Supreme Court and the same is said to be pending.
4. Contention of appellant is that School Committee meeting was convened on 22.2.2008 without any notice and any minutes being recorded. The 1st respondent and another School Committee member N.Alagarsamy, who is none other than the own son-in-law of the 1st respondent and his elder brother Chinnasamy, who is also a Committee member, proposed to appoint teaching staff for six vacant posits. Grievance of the appellant is that that he is one of the member of the School Committee and that without consulting the appellant, the first respondent is trying to make appointments. The appellant and another writ petitioner - Thiyagarajan have sent a representation (dated 23.2.2008) to the respondents 2 and 3, but respondents 2 and 3 have not conducted any enquiry. In the mean time, after issuing an advertisement on 5.3.2008 inviting applications for six vacant posts of teaching staffs in K.K.S.Middle School, the said vacant posts were filled. The 3rd respondent deliberately ignored the complaint and has accorded permission for such recruitment vide proceedings Mu.Mu.No.4424/A4/2007 dated 29.2.2008. Case of appellant is that the 3rd respondent had taken sides with the 1st respondent and recognised him as the Educational Agency and had also issued proceedings approving the appointment of teachers and therefore the appellant and the 2nd writ petitioner sought for writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation of the appellant dated 23.2.2008 and conduct an enquiry and to pass suitable orders in accordance with law and procedure prescribed under Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973.
5. The learned single Judge held that the Writ Petition has been filed on 12.3.2008 and on that date the writ petitioners are not members of the School Committee and when they are not the members of the School Committee, writ petitioners have no right to file the present writ petition. The learned judge further held that writ of mandamus can be ordered only if writ petitioners show that they have a legal right in prosecuting the matter and since the petitioners are not the Committee members of the School in question they cannot maintain the writ petition and on those findings dismissed the writ petition.
6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, appellant has preferred this Appeal. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the learned judge has not properly considered the materials produced in the typed set of papers. It was further contended that the learned judge misconstrued the nature of the orders passed in I.A.No.41 of 2004 in A.S.No.15 of 2004 in which the 1st respondent was permitted to act as Secretary of the disputed School only till the disposal of the Appeal. Further contention of appellant is that during the pendency of A.S.No.15 of 2004, the question in respect of Educational Agency of the disputed school was an undecided question and during that period neither the 1st respondent nor the 4th respondent could act as Educational Agency. Contention of appellant is that the 1st respondent would be entitled to constitute a School Committee only after the disposal of the Appeal suit - A.S.No.15 of 2004 (dated 28.1.2008) in terms of Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Rules and while so the School Committee approved by the proceedings on 10.5.2007 is not a valid one. It was submitted that in the light of those proceedings the learned single Judge ought to have directed respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.2.2008 and ought to have directed respondents 2 and 3 to conduct enquiry.
7. We have heard Mr.A.Thirumurthy, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent. Learned counsel for 1st respondent contended that neither the appellant was the member of the School Committee and by the proceedings dated 10.5.2007 District elementary Educational Officer has approved the members of the School Committee in which the appellant was not the member of the School Committee. It was further submitted that after A.S.No.15 of 2004 was allowed, by proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.1453/2008 dated 19.3.2008, 3rd respondent - District Elementary Education Officer had recognised the 1st respondent as the Educational Agency and the appellant and the 2nd writ petitioner have no manner of right to file Writ Petition seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to take action against the 1st respondent in pursuance to their complaint dated 23.2.2008.
8. Reiterating the contentions of the appellant, learned counsel for 4th respondent submitted that even when the dispute was pending in the Civil Court, the 3rd respondent proceeded to approve the School Committee recognising the 1st respondent as the Secretary for a period of three years, which is unsustainable.
9. Learned Special Government Pleader contended that on the basis of report of Additional Assistant Elementary Officer's letter in Na.Ka.No.574/B2/2007 dated 26.3.2007 in which the 3rd respondent had approved the 1st respondent as Secretary from 5.2.2007 to 4.2.2010, the proceedings of the third respondent were issued in Mu.Mu.No.704/A4/2001 dated 10.5.2007 approving the 1st respondent as the Secretary and the said proceedings was issued after following the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act and also the Rules. Learned Special Government Pleader would further contend that the 3rd respondent never deviated from the rules and regulations of the said Act and Rules.
10. The contention of appellant is that he was a member of the School Committee till the disposal of the Appeal - A.S.No.15 of 2004 on the file of Sub-Court, Sivakasi (28.1.2008) and that he continued to be the member of the School Committee. Grievance of appellant is that even when the questions regarding Secretaryship and administration of the School were pending in the Civil Court, 3rd respondent had taken sides with the 1st respondent and in the proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.704/A4/2001 dated 10.5.2007 approved the School Committee and the 1st respondent as a Secretary till 4.2.2010 and the said proceedings is unsustainable.
11. At the time of hearing the appeal, learned counsel for appellant had produced certain documents obtained under Right to Information Act. By perusal of the same, it is seen from various Minutes of the School Committee that the appellant was a School Committee member for the period between 1996 - July 2003. Thereafter, the appellant was not a School Committee member, more so, at the time of filing of the Writ Petition in 2008. When the appellant is not a member of the School Committee and has no legal right in prosecuting the matter and the appellant cannot seek for a direction to respondents 2 and 3.
12. As pointed out earlier, being aggrieved by the judgment in O.S.No.29 of 2001, the 1st respondent preferred A.S.No.15 of 2004 on the file of Sub- Court, Sivakasi. In the said Appeal, stay petition was filed in I.A.No.41 of 2004. In the said Interlocutory Application, Government Pleader has undertaken not to disturb the then Management until the disposal of the application. The order made in I.A.No.41 of 2004 dated 15.6.2004 reads as under: R1 files counter. G.P. has already entered appearance for R2 to R11 (on Petition exparte order against R2, R3 set aside today in the appeal). For hearing 22.06.2004. Objections of R2 to R4, if any, in the meanwhile. The G.P. Undertakes not to disturb the present Management until the disposal of this application. The representation is recorded and shall form part of the order of the Court.
13. Contention of appellant and the 4th respondent is that the true spirit of the above order in I.A.No.41 of 2004 is that of one making adhoc arrangement in terms of Section 53-A of the Act and as such the order passed by the 2nd respondent on 10.5.2007 is null and void in the eye of law. It is the further contention of the appellant that when the question regarding the School administration and Secretaryship was pending dispute in a Civil Court the 3rd respondent was not justified in approving the members of the School Committee and recognising the 1st respondent as the Secretary.
14. Of course, the proceedings made by the 3rd respondent in in Mu.Mu.No.704/A4/2001 dated 10.5.2007 came to be passed even during the pendency of the Appeal. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent in this writ appeal it is clearly stated that only on the basis of the report of Additional Assistant Elementary Officer's letter No.Na.Ka.No.574/B2/2007 dated 26.3.2007, the proceedings dated 10.5.2007 came to be passed. It is further averred that the said proceeding was passed in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 and the Rules thereon. The 1st respondent was recognised as an Educational Agency by the proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.1453/A4/2008 dated 19.3.2008 and only after the disposal of the appeal the first respondent was recognised as the Educational Agency. If really the appellant and the 4th respondent were so aggrieved by the said proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.704/A4/2001 dated 10.5.2007, the appellants ought to have challenged the said proceedings. In any event, because the First Appeal as well as the Second Appeal ended in favour of the first respondent, appellant cannot have any valid grievance against the said proceedings, more so, when the appellant is not a member of the School Committee member.
15. Pointing out that the appellant and the other writ Petitioner are not School Committee members at the time of filing of writ petition and that they have no right to file Writ Petition, learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any reason warranting interference with the order of learned single Judge and the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.