BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN W.A.(MD)Nos.790, 796 and 797 of 2008 and 12 and 312 of 2009 The Governing Council of American College, Represented by the Principal and Secretary, Dr.V.George Selvakumar, American College Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai-625 002. ... Appellant in WA 790/2008/ Dr.V.George Selvakumar, Vice Principal (now under suspension) American College Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai-2. ... Appellant No.1 in WA 796/2008 Dr.M.Devamani Christopher ... Appellant No.2 in WA 796/2008 Rev.Christopher Asir, The Bishop, Church of South India, Madurai and Ramnad Diocese, Rachanyapuram, Moonumavadi, Madurai-625 007. ... Appellant in WA 797/2008 The Governing Council of American College, Represented by the Bishop and Chairman, American College Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai-625 002. ... Appellant in WA 12/09 Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar ... Appellant in WA 312/09 Vs. The Director of Collegiate Education, EVK Sampath Building, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. .. R-1 in WAs 790/08 & 12/09, 312/09 R-2 in WAs 796/08 & 797/08 The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, No.30, Vaidhyanatha Iyer Street, Madurai-20. .. R-2 in WAs 790/08 & 12/09, 312/09 R-3 in WAs 796/08 & 797/08 The Bishop and Chairman, The Governing Council of American College, American College Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai-625 002. .. R-3 in WA 790/08 Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar ... R-4 in WA 790/08, R-1 in WAs 796/08 & 797/08, R-3 in WA 12/09 The Governing Council of American College, Represented by its Principal and Secretary, Dr.P.R.Anbudurai (In-charge), American College Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai-625 002. ... R-4 in WAs 796/08 & 797/08, R-3 in WA 312/09 Rev.Christopher Asir, The Bishop, Church of South India, Madurai and Ramnad Diocese, Rachanyapuram, Moonumavadi, Madurai-625 007. ... R-5 in WA 796/08, R-4 in WA 312/09 Dr.V.George Selvakumar, Vice Principal (now under suspension) American College Campus, Goripalayam, Madurai-2. ... R-5 in WAs 797/08 & 312/09 K.Ponnusamy ... R-6 in WA 796/08, R-7 in WAs 797/08 & 312/09 Dr.M.Devamani Christopher ... R-6 in WAs 797/08 & 312/09 Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the common order dated 11.12.2008 of this Court in W.P.Nos.9760 , 9401 and 7844 of 2008. For Appellant in WAs.790,796 and 797/08 and 12/09 : Mr. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Mr.AL.Somayaji and Mr.N.R.Chandran, Senior Counsel For Appellant in WA 312/09 and For contesting respondents in other Appeals : Mr.Issac Mohanlal For R-4 in WAs 796&797/08 : Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel. For R-6 & R-7 in WAs 796 &797/08 : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan C O M M O N JUDGMENT V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. These 5 Writ Appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Judge in 3 writ petitions, 2 of which related to the replacement of a Principal and Secretary of a college and the third related to the dismissal from service of the incumbent in the post of Principal. 2. We have heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Mr.AL.Somayaji and Mr.N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in 4 Writ Appeals and Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.312 of 2009 and also the contesting respondent in the other Writ Appeals, Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent in W.A.Nos.796 and 797 of 2008, Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the Enquiry Officer, who is the sixth and seventh respondent respectively in W.A.No.796 and 797 of 2008. 3. That it is possible at times, due to irony of fate, for an insignificant event to get flared up into a huge controversy, is amply demonstrated by the batch of cases on hand. In a nutshell, one simple leave application by the Principal of a College led to (i) the appointment of the Vice Principal in his place, (ii) the suspension followed by enquiry and dismissal of the Principal by one group, (iii) the suspension of the Vice Principal and appointment of another person as Vice Principal by the other group and (iv) the refusal of the Director of Collegiate Education to recognise the change of guard, all of which ultimately landed up before this Court in 3 writ petitions, that have now become the subject matter of these 5 writ appeals. 4. Since the pleadings of parties are a mixture of chaff and grain, we have carefully segregated them and furnish herein below, only those facts which are just adequate to clinch the issues, in order to avoid a wild goose chase:- (a) A Society by name "Governing Council of the American College, Madurai" was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in June 1934 with a view to provide what is termed in the bye-laws as "a liberal Christian Higher Education". (b) As per the bye-laws, the membership of the Society comprised of the following persons:- (i) Principal (Ex-officio) (ii) Vice Principal (Ex-officio) (iii) The Bursar (Ex-officio) (iv) Two permanent members of the Faculty elected by the permanent members of the Faculty. (v) The Bishop in Madurai and Ramnad of the Church of South India (Ex-officio) (vi) One person nominated by the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council of Madurai and Ramnad. (vii) One person appointed by the Synod of Church of South India. (viii) Two persons appointed by the All India Association for Christian Higher Education from Tamil Nadu Region. (ix) Three members co-opted by the Council. (x) One member nominated by the Madurai University. (c) Interestingly, Clause V.2 of the bye-laws prescribes that the term of office for all members other than Ex-officio members shall be 2 years. Normally, the membership of any registered Society will not be for a fixed tenure though the Executive/Managing Committee of a Society may be elected for a particular term. A careful perusal of the bye-laws show that they have not been brought in tune with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, which now make it necessary for the Societies registered under the Central Act, to bring their bye-laws in tune with the State enactment of the year 1975. However, it is claimed that an exemption has now been obtained from the Government, from the application of the provisions of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act to the institution in question. (d) Before we proceed with our journey further, it is to be noted that the very name of the Society is "The Governing Council of the American College" and hence wherever the phrase Governing Council appears, in the bye-laws, it denotes the General Body and not any executive committee. (e) Under Clause V.4(b) of the bye-laws, The Governing Council (meaning the General Body thereby) has the power to appoint or terminate the services of the Principal, the Vice Principal, the Bursar, the Professors and Heads of Departments, the Chaplain and Wardens of hostels. Clause V.4(b) only reiterates what is said in Clause IV(ii) that the Principal, Vice Principal and Bursar shall be appointed by the Governing Council. (f) Clause IV(iii) stipulates that the Principal shall be the Executive Head and Official Correspondent of the College and Secretary of the Governing Council. He is empowered to act as the Official Representative of the Council in legal and other capacities. He is entitled to make appointments to the Faculty, in consultation with the Vice Principal and Head of the Department, but the same is subject to the approval of the Council. The power to recommend the members of the Faculty to the Governing Council for their continuance, confirmation or termination also vests in the Principal under Clause IV(iii) of the bye-laws. In so far as the Non-Faculty members of the staff are concerned, the Principal alone has the power to appoint, determine their duties and terminate their services. (g) Under Clause IV(B), the Vice Principal is empowered to perform the duties of the Principal, in the absence of or inability of the Principal. (h) In terms of the bye-laws, the General Body of the Society in question, viz., "The Governing Council of the American College" passed a resolution in its meeting held on 22.5.2006, appointing one Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, as the Principal of the College, with effect from 1.6.2006. Consequently, he also became the Official Correspondent of the College and the Secretary of the Society in terms of the bye-laws and hence the out going Principal filed Form-VI in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules 1976 with the Director of Collegiate Education. Form No.VII in terms of Rule 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 was also filed with the Registrar of Societies, relating to the change of Secretaryship. Upto this stage, there was no dispute between the parties. (i) On 14.3.2008, the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar applied for Unearned Leave on Private Affairs for the period from 9.4.2008 to 2.5.2008. Since he wanted to go abroad, the leave application was forwarded to the Director of Collegiate Education, for sanction, as the Institution is an aided minority institution. (j) However, on 8.4.2008, the Principal claims to have put up a notice in the Notice Board of the College to the effect that his tour was called off. Interestingly, the said notice contained a reference to certain recent developments , though it did not elaborate on the same. This notice gives sufficient indication that trouble was brewing in the Institution and was waiting to erupt. (k) On 10.4.2008, the Bishop, who is also the Chairman of the General Body, issued a letter to the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar, describing him as Principal and Secretary in-charge and expressing the hope that he had assumed charge in the place of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, in the event of the Principal going on leave on private affairs from 9.4.2008. (l) On 11.4.2008, the Director of Collegiate Education passed an order sanctioning leave to the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, with effect from 9.4.2008 to 2.5.2008. Actually, the copy of this letter bears the signature of the Superintendent of the Office of the Director of Collegiate Education with the date 17.4.2008 and the same is stated to have been received in the Office of the Principal of the College only on 19.4.2008. But the leave sought for, was from 9.4.2008, which means that the leave was sanctioned only after the period of leave had already commenced. (m) The letter dated 10-4-2008 given by the Bishop to Dr.V.George Selvakumar, the then Vice Principal, to take charge as Principal and Secretary in charge, led to acrimony on 12.4.2008, resulting in police complaints followed by certain untoward incidents, in which the Guru kshetra (abode of teachers) became kurukshetra (battle field). Therefore on the very same day viz., 12.4.2008, the Principal Dr. T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar placed Dr.V.George Selvakumar under suspension, in contemplation of an enquiry into grave charges. (n) In retaliation, Dr.V.George Selvakumar, whom the Bishop directed to function as Principal in-charge, convened a meeting of the General Council on 19.4.2008, with a claim that he was the Secretary of the Society by virtue of being the Principal in-charge. In the said meeting held on 19.4.2008, two resolutions were passed (i) placing Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, the Principal under suspension and (ii) appointing Dr.V.George Selvakumar as Principal and Secretary in-charge. (o) The very authority of Dr.V.George Selvakumar, to convene the meeting of the General Council on 19.4.2008, became the subject matter of controversy. Adding to the agony, the very membership of persons who attended the meeting on 19.4.2008, also became the subject matter of dispute. (p) Consequently, Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar stuck to his seat as the Principal, on the basis that the resolution dated 19.4.2008 was invalid. Per contra, Dr.V.George Selvakumar attempted to take over as the Principal and Secretary in-charge on the strength of the resolution dated 19.4.2008. (q) What followed were a spate of complaints, counter complaints, an enquiry by the RDO, peace committee meetings, a writ petition for police protection, an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C., a Criminal Revision Petition on the file of this Court etc. Since these events are not necessary for our present purpose and also since they are better forgotten as a bad dream in the history of the college, we wish not to record them here. (r) Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, who continued to stake a claim as the Principal and Secretary, convened a meeting of the General Council on 28.5.2008. That Council passed certain resolutions, including a resolution (i) accepting new members to the Society (ii) ratifying the suspension of Dr.V.George Selvakumar passed by the Principal on 12.4.2008 and (iii) appointing Dr.P.R.Anbudurai as the Vice Principal in the place of Dr.V.George Selvakumar and Mr.C.Premkumar Immanuel as Bursar in the place of Dr.M.Devamani Christopher. (s) In a parallel move, the Bishop issued a charge memo dated 17.6.2008 to Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar (Principal of the College). At the same time, Dr.V.George Selvakumar (the Vice Principal nominated as Principal in-charge) filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5460 of 2008, challenging the very selection of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar 2 years ago as the Principal. This writ petition was dismissed even at the admission stage on 20.6.2008. (t) However, on the basis of the nomination of Dr.V.George Selvakumar, as Principal and Secretary in-charge by the Bishop, a Form in Form No.VI was filed by the Bishop with the Director of Collegiate Education, under Rule 9 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, on 24.7.2008. Simultaneously, the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar also informed the Director of Collegiate Education about the suspension of Dr.V.George Selvakumar. (u) On the request of the Bishop to record the change of Secretaryship from Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to Dr.V.George Selvakumar and on the counter request of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to take note of the suspension of Dr.V.George Selvakumar, the Director of Collegiate Education, passed an order dated 14.8.2008. By this order, the Director of Collegiate Education did two things viz., (i) set aside the suspension of Dr.V.George Selvakumar by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar and (ii) set aside the removal of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar as Principal and Secretary. In other words, the effect of this order of the Director of Collegiate Education was that Dr.V.George Selvakumar was to be reinstated as Vice Principal and Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar was to continue as Principal and Secretary. (v) Challenging the said order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008, the Governing Council represented by the Bishop filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7844 of 2008. Interestingly, the Governing Council represented by Dr.V.George Selvakumar also filed a writ petition against the same order dated 14.8.2008 of the Director of Collegiate Education in W.P.No.9760 of 2008. (w) In the meantime, the Bishop and Chairman appointed an Enquiry Officer and had an enquiry conducted ex parte against Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, which culminated in an order of dismissal from service dated 22.9.2008. Challenging his dismissal from service, Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9401 of 2008. Thus, there arose 3 writ petitions. 5. All the 3 writ petitions (2 challenging the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008 and one filed by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, challenging his dismissal from service) were taken up together for disposal by the learned Judge. A preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the Principal, was raised by the Governing Council on the ground that the institution is a minority institution and its right to appoint or terminate a Principal, cannot be questioned. The learned Judge overruled the objection and held the writ petition filed by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar as maintainable, since it is an aided institution. 6. In the writ petition W.P.No.9401 of 2008 filed by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, challenging his dismissal from service, primarily three contentions were raised viz., (i) that the entire disciplinary proceedings were without jurisdiction, as the membership of those who attended the meeting of the General Council on 22.9.2008, was questionable; (ii) that there were violations of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry; and (iii) that two persons who deposed in the enquiry as witnesses on the side of the Management, were also members of the Governing Council that passed the resolution dated 22.9.2008 and hence the proceedings were vitiated by bias. 7. The learned Judge rejected the first ground of attack on the ground that several disputed questions of fact about who constituted the Governing Council that met on 22.9.2008, whether they were actually the members of the Governing Council etc., have arisen and that the same cannot be decided in a writ petition. The second ground of attack viz., the violation of principles of natural justice, was also rejected by the learned Judge on the ground that the then Principal failed to participate in the proceedings and that he had not established any prejudice due to the non-observance of the principles of natural justice. 8. However, the learned Judge accepted the third ground of attack that there was a deep rooted bias on the part of the Governing Council, in view of the rival claims and clashes by two groups and also in view of the fact that two witnesses participated in the deliberations of the Governing Council on 22.9.2008. Therefore the learned Judge held that the resolution dated 22.9.2008 deserved to be set aside. However, since it was not clear to the learned Judge as to who constituted the Governing Council, the learned Judge felt that the matter could not also be remitted back to the Governing Council for proceeding from the stage at which the irregularity crept in. Therefore, the learned Judge ultimately stopped with a mere declaration that the resolution dated 22.9.2008 was bad in law and left the choice to the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to approach the civil court for consequential reliefs and to participate in the proceedings, if initiated afresh, by the same set of people who claimed to constitute the Governing Council. 9. After declaring the resolution dated 22.9.2008, dismissing the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, to be illegal, the learned Judge proceeded to consider the findings of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women, which enquired into certain untoward incidents that happened in the College, when both groups clashed with each other. Though the report of the Commission was not the subject matter of any of the three writ petitions and though the happenings in the campus, which led to the order under Section 145 Cr.P.C., were not the issues raised in the writ petitions, the learned Judge took note of the report of the Women's Commission and disposed of W.P.No.9401 of 2008, with certain directions, which in brief run as follows:- (a) Dr.P.R.Anbudurai, the person appointed as Vice Principal, by the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar should continue to act as the Principal/ Secretary of the College and the Joint Director of Collegiate Education should monitor the administration and issue suitable advises to him. (b) The District Collector and Commissioner of Police should provide adequate security. (c) Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, the Bishop and Dr.V.George Selvakumar should approach the Civil Court to get the disputes relating to the validity of the disciplinary proceedings resolved. (d) The continuance of Dr.P.R.Anbudurai as Principal in-charge, would be till a Civil Court grants any interim order or final order and till such time, Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, the Bishop, Dr.V.George Selvakumar and the Bursar Dr.M.Davamani Christopher should not interfere in the administration. (e) The salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff should be paid directly by the Director of Collegiate Education. (f) No opinion is expressed on the validity of the resolution dated 19.4.2008, by which Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar was suspended. No finding is also recorded whether the disciplinary proceedings leading to the dismissal order of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, are valid or not. However, the resolution dated 22.9.2008 dismissing Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar is declared as bad in law, on the ground of bias. 10. After disposing of W.P.No.9401 of 2008, filed by the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, on the above lines, the learned Judge took up W.P.No.7844 of 2008, filed by the Governing Council represented by Bishop and Chairman. It may be recalled that this writ petition was against the order of the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 14.8.2008, by which the Director rejected the request of the Bishop to take note of the resolution dated 19.4.2008 and the change of Principalship and Secretaryship from Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to Dr.V.George Selvakumar. The learned Judge dismissed this writ petition on the technical ground that under Clause IV(iii)(b) of the bye-laws, it is only the Principal/Secretary who is empowered to act as the official representative of the Council in legal and other capacities. Therefore, the learned Judge held that the Bishop was not competent to institute the writ petition on behalf of the Governing Council, in the absence of at least a special resolution, by the General Council, authorising him to do so. 11. After disposing of W.P.No.9401 of 2008 with the directions extracted in paragraph-9 above and after dismissing W.P.No.7844 of 2008, the learned Judge took up W.P.No.9760 of 2008, filed by the Governing Council with Dr.V.George Selvakumar representing himself as the Principal and Secretary in-charge. This writ petition was also against the Director's order dated 14.8.2008. Even in this writ petition, the question of maintainability of the writ by Dr.V.George Selvakumar was raised by the contesting respondents. The learned Judge found that the very appointment of Dr.V.George Selvakumar as Principal and Secretary in-charge became highly contentious, especially in the light of his suspension, by the Principal, by an order dated 12.4.2008 and its subsequent ratification by the Governing Council on 28.5.2008. Therefore the learned Judge held in paragraph-109 of his judgment that the writ cannot be held to be maintainable. But at the same time, the learned Judge held that the order of the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 14.8.2008, was without jurisdiction, as the College in question is an aided minority institution, which was not obliged to get approval for suspending a person and appointing someone else in his place. Therefore, even while holding the writ to be not maintainable, the learned Judge held the order of the Director to be illegal and quashed the same. 12. The ultimate effect of the order passed by the learned Judge in all the three writ petitions, could be summarised as follows:- (a) That the resolution of the Governing Council dated 22.9.2008 dismissing Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar is bad in law; (b) However, the consequences that flow out of the above declaration regarding the resolution dated 22.9.2008 are to be worked out in a civil court, since the learned Judge felt that without being able to arrive at a finding about who are the members and who constituted the Governing Council, it was not even possible to allow the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to proceed from the stage at which the irregularities crept it; (c) The question as to who are the members of the Governing Council was left open to be agitated by the parties before the appropriate Civil Court; (d) Till such time, the Civil Court decides any such question and passes an interim or final order, Dr.P.R.Anbudurai, the person appointed as Vice Principal by the then Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar should function as the Principal and Secretary in-charge, with the Joint Director of Collegiate Education monitoring the administration; (e) The writ petition filed by Dr.V.George Selvakumar appointed by the Bishop as Principal and Secretary in-charge, is also held to be not maintainable since his very appointment as such was bogged down by controversies. However, the order impugned therein, viz., the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008, rejecting the request of the Bishop to record the change of Secretaryship from Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to Dr.V.George Selvakumar is also declared as bad, without there being any consequential orders; (f) The writ petition filed by the Bishop as representing the Governing Council is dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the Secretary alone can represent the Governing Council in legal matters; 13. As against the disposal of the 3 writ petitions on the above lines, by the learned Judge, all the writ petitioners have come up with the present writ appeals, contending that the above order has created more complications than those sought to be resolved. The challenge in these appeals are as follows:- (i) W.A.No.790 of 2008 is by the Governing Council represented by Dr. V. George Selvakumar challenging that portion of the order by which the learned Judge held the writ filed by them in W.P.No.9760 of 2008 as not maintainable, though by the same breath the learned Judge also declared the order impugned in the writ to be bad in law. (ii) W.A.no.796 of 2008 is by the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar and the Bursar Dr.Davamani Christopher, challenging the order in W.P. No. 9401 of 2008 declaring the dismissal of the Principal to be vitiated by bias. (iii)W.A.No.797 of 2008 is by the Bishop (in his individual capacity as Chairman) against the order in W.P.N.9401 of 2008 declaring the dismissal of the Principal as bad. (iv) W.A.No.12 of 2009 is by the Governing Council, represented by the Bishop, challenging the dismissal of their writ W.P.No.7844 of 2008 arising out of the order of the Director of Collegiate Education and (v) W.A.No.312 of 2009 is by the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar against the refusal of the learned Judge to grant consequential reliefs in W.P. No.9401 of 2008 arising out of his dismissal from service. 14. Leading the attack, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bishop (appellant in W.A.No.797 of 2008), contended that since the institution in question is a religious minority institution and also since the Governing Council is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, the very maintainability of W.P.No.9401 of 2008 was doubtful. He also found fault with the reliance placed by the learned Judge on the report of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and contended that since Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar deliberately abstained from participating in the enquiry proceedings, he was not entitled to attack the enquiry proceedings and the final order passed thereon. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the dismissal of W.P.No.7844 of 2008 was also erroneous since the Bishop is the Chairman and hence he is always entitled to represent the Society. 15. Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Dr.V.George Selvakumar (appellant in W.A.No.790 of 2008), contended that in a writ petition filed by the Principal as against the order of his dismissal from service, the learned Judge was wrong in displacing the very Management and Administration. The learned Senior Counsel also took strong exceptions to the reliance placed upon the report of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women, both on the ground that the Commission exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it in law and also on the ground that the Commission's report was originally sought to be filed before Court through an application, which was later withdrawn. Therefore the learned Senior Counsel contended that the Commission's report was not part of the records. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in TMA Pai case, the writ was not maintainable, since the post of a Principal is of special nature and he has a pivotal role in the institution. The learned Senior Counsel assailed the finding recorded by the learned Judge that there was deep rooted bias against Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar on the part of the Governing Council which passed the resolution dated 22.9.2008. 16. Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Dr.V.George Selvakumar (appellant in W.A.No.796 of 2008) contended that a final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings cannot be set aside solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Court has to see if it is a case of total denial of opportunities or a case of lack of sufficient opportunities. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that even on admitted facts, this case fell under the second category viz., lack of sufficient opportunities and not under the category of total denial of opportunities. Therefore the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learned Judge ought not to have declared the final order to be illegal. 17. Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, the contesting respondent in 4 writ appeals and the appellant in W.A.No.312 of 2009, submitted that the learned Judge ought to have granted consequential reliefs after coming to the conclusion that the resolution dated 22.9.2008 was bad in law. He further submitted that with just a declaration, without a consequential relief, the order would lie in vacuum. Though the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar applied for leave, it was sanctioned after the date on which the leave was to commence and hence he did not avail the leave. Therefore there was no occasion for the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar to assume charge and convene a meeting of the Governing Council on 19.4.2008, which triggered a chain reaction. Therefore the learned counsel even while supporting the order of the learned Judge to the extent that the resolution dated 22.9.2008 was declared to be bad, prayed for the grant of consequential reliefs. At the same time, the learned counsel also submitted that even till date, Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar continues to hold Office as the Principal, in view of certain interim orders passed at the time of admission of the writ appeals, placing the administration of the College in the hands of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education. Therefore, the grant of consequential reliefs, is to have no adverse effect on the administration, either financial or otherwise. 18. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent-Dr.P.R.Anbudurai, supported the case of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar and submitted that once the resolution dated 19.4.2008 goes, everything else would fall like a pack of cards. Therefore the learned Senior Counsel appealed to us to examine the validity of the resolution dated 19.4.2008. 19. We have carefully considered the above submissions. Since a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition filed by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar is raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in 4 writ appeals, let us deal with the same at the threshold. MAINTAINABILITY: 20. As stated in our prelude, the Educational Agency of the American College is known as The Governing Council of the American College . It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The College is also a religious minority institution, receiving grant-in-aid from the Government. Therefore the objections to the maintainability of the writ petition are of two fold viz., (i) that a writ against a Society is not maintainable; and (b) that a writ against a minority institution, especially in respect of the appointment, termination etc., of a Principal who holds a pivotal role, is not maintainable. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, places reliance upon the decision in TMA Pai Foundation, specially with respect to question No.5(c) and the answer thereto, found in paragraph-161 of the decision. The question and answer are reproduced as follows:- Q. 5.(c) Whether the statutory provisions which regulate the facets of administration like control over educational agencies, control over governing 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 right of administration of minorities? A. So far as the statutory provisions regulating the facets of administration are concerned, in case of an unaided minority educational institution, the regulatory measure of control should be minimal and the conditions of recognition as well as the conditions of affiliation to a university or board have to be complied with, but in the matter of day-to-day management, like the appointment of staff, teaching and non-teaching, and administrative control over them, the management should have the freedom and there should not be any external controlling agency. However, a rational procedure for the selection of teaching staff and for taking disciplinary action has to be evolved by the management itself. For redressing the grievances of employees of aided and unaided institutions who are subjected to punishment or termination from service, a mechanism will have to be evolved, and in our opinion, appropriate tribunals could be constituted, and till then, such tribunals could be presided over by a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge. The State or other controlling authorities, however, can always prescribe the minimum qualification, experience and other conditions bearing on the merit of an individual for being appointed as a teacher or a principal of any educational institution. Regulations can be framed governing service conditions for teaching and other staff for whom aid is provided by the State, without interfering with the overall administrative control of the management over the staff. Fees to be charged by unaided institutions cannot be regulated but no institution should charge capitation fee. On the basis of the above, it is contended by the learned Senior counsel for the appellants that till a mechanism is evolved and a special Tribunal is constituted, the employees of minority institutions cannot maintain a writ. 21. At the outset, we wish to point out that the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the institution is a Society, does not hold water any more. Article 226 (1) empowers this Court to issue directions, orders or writs to "any person or authority". Therefore even a Society is amenable to the writ jurisdiction, provided there is an element of public duty. In Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust vs. V.R.Rudani {1989 (2) SCC 691}, a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, was held amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It was held therein that when public money is paid as Government aid, the aided institutions discharge public functions and they become subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Affiliating University. Therefore, the Supreme Court opined that employment in such institutions is not devoid of any public character. Again in K.Krishnamacharyulu vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering {1997 (3) SCC 571}, the Supreme Court held a writ filed even by the employees of unaided private educational institution as maintainable on the ground that the teachers get an element of public interest in the performance of their duties. Hence the contention that a writ against a Society is not maintainable, cannot be accepted as of universal application, especially since the institution in question in these appeals, receives grant-in-aid from the Government. 22. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that since the Governing Council of the American College is a Society, the only remedy available to the Principal as against his dismissal from service, is to go before the Civil Court, seeking damages for breach of the contract of appointment. In support of the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. S.N.Goyal {2009 (1) LW 1}. But it was a case where the dismissal of the Manager of a Bank was challenged in a civil suit, praying for a declaration and mandatory injunction. The suit was decreed with a declaration and also a mandatory injunction for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The decree was confirmed on appeal with an additional benefit in favour of the Manager. The second appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was no substantial question of law. When the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court made a distinction between public employment and private employment and held that there cannot be a specific performance of a contract of private employment. This view was taken especially in the light of the provisions of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, and in the light of the fact that it was a civil suit. In our case, the employment of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar as Principal, would not fall under the category of private employment, since the institution receives grant-in-aid from the Government. The Supreme Court has already clarified in Anadi Mukta's case that such employment would partake the character of public employment. Further the writ appeals do not arise out of civil suits. Therefore, the decision in State Bank of India case, arising out of a civil suit, cannot be applied to the case on hand, which arises out of a writ petition. 23. Moreover, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Correspondent, St. Michael's Teacher Training Institute vs. V.N.Karpaga Mary and others {2008 (7) SCC 388}, that the reliefs to be granted in proceedings under different jurisdictions may vary. It was held in paragraph-14 as follows:- The Courts exercise different jurisdictions while entertaining applications filed under different statutes. While entertaining a suit, the Court's jurisdiction would be governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Although principles laid down therein may be found to be applicable, the said provisions by themselves need not be strictly applied by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the contention that only a civil suit for damages would lie and not a writ would lie, cannot be accepted. 24. In so far as the next limb of the argument is concerned, it is an admitted fact that no Special Tribunal has so far been constituted, as observed by the Apex Court in TMA Pai case, in answer to question No.5(c) in paragraph-161. Therefore, as on date, the employees of minority institutions, especially those receiving grant-in-aid of the State, cannot be shut out from this Court. TMA Pai case, was primarily concerned about the admission of students to educational institutions and the right of the Government to have control over such institutions, which are self-financed or partly financed by the Government and those which are aided or unaided minority institutions. The question of maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of an employee of a minority institution was not directly in issue in TMA Pai case. It was considered incidentally when a question arose about the right of the minority institutions to manage and administer their own affairs and the effect of statutory provisions which regulated or controlled such management and administration. Moreover, the answer provided under paragraph-161 of TMA Pai case, to question No.5(c) is not with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition filed by an employee of a minority educational institution. The Supreme Court was only concerned with the statutory control and the control sought to be exercised by the Government over such institutions. The Supreme Court never gave an indication in TMA Pai case, that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the employees of aided minority institutions are beyond the pale of judicial review under Article 226. A careful reading of the entire decision in TMA Pai case, would show that the Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental principle that the right to administer did not include the right to maladminister. Since the statutes of various States provide protection to the employees of other educational institutions and also since the minority institutions are not amenable to such control, the Supreme Court thought fit to suggest the creation of an alternative Forum or Special Tribunal for the redressal of the grievances of employees of minority institutions. The suggestion in the answer to question No.5(c) in paragraph-161 of TMA Pai case, is to create a Special Tribunal, as an alternative to any forum prescribed in the Statutes. It is not a suggestion to oust the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 nor to create a Tribunal to replace the writ jurisdiction. Such an ouster of jurisdiction is possible only by statute and the validity of any such statute is itself amenable to judicial scrutiny under Article 226. After the decision of the Supreme Court in L.Chandrakumar case, even the decision of Administrative Tribunal constituted as an alternative to the writ jurisdiction, became vulnerable to the writ jurisdiction. Therefore it is too late in the day to say that the writ petition against an order of dismissal of an employee of an aided minority educational institution, is not maintainable. 25. While construing the decision in TMA Pai case, the Supreme Court pointed out in P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra {2005 (6) SCC 537} that minority unaided institutions have an unfettered right to choose students for admission, but the procedure therefor should be fair, transparent and non-exploitative. If even in the matter of admission of students, especially to unaided minority institutions, the test of fairness would apply, an aided minority institution like the appellant cannot contend that they have an absolute unfettered right in the matter of termination of the services of a Principal. 26. All the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, emphasising the pivotal role of the Principal/Headmaster of an educational institution and the right of the minorities to appoint a candidate of their choice so as to synchronise with the philosophy of the institution, cannot be applied to a case of dismissal from service. A candidate seeking appointment or promotion to the post of Principal/Headmaster does not have a vested right except a right to be considered. In contrast, a person appointed as Principal/Headmaster gets certain rights vested in him by virtue of such appointment. Therefore the decisions applicable in the case of selection and appointment of Principal cannot ipso facto be applied to the termination or dismissal from service, where the right to livelihood protected by Article 21 is sought to be infringed. 27. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in St. Stephen's College vs. University of Delhi-W.P.No.5226 of 2008 dated 21.8.2008 in which a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court declared Clause 7(2) of the Ordinance XVIII of the Delhi University to be inapplicable to a minority institution. However that case was concerned with the constitution of Selection Committees for filling up the post of Principal in Colleges affiliated to the University. The case relating to an appointment cannot be equated to a case relating to termination or dismissal. 28. As a matter of fact, the decision of the Delhi High Court followed to a great extent, the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College vs. T.Jose and Others {2007 (1) SCC 386}. In that Malankara case, the Supreme Court considered in extenso, the earlier decisions of the Court in State of Kerala vs. Very Rev. Mother Provincial {1970 (2) SCC 417}, Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society vs. State of Gujarat {1974 (1) SCC 717}, Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association vs. Union of India {1986 (4) SCC 707} etc. Then the Court also considered TMA Pai and P.A.Inamdar and summarised the general principles on the right of minorities in paragraph-19 as under:- 19. The general principles relating to establishment and administration of educational institution by minorities may be summarised thus: (i) The right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice comprises the following rights: (a) to choose its governing body in whom the founders of the institution have faith and confidence to conduct and manage the affairs of the institution; (b) to appoint teaching staff (teachers/lecturers and Headmasters/Principals) as also non-teaching staff, and to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any of its employees; (c) to admit eligible students of their choice and to set up a reasonable fee structure; (d) to use its properties and assets for the benefit of the institution. (ii) The right conferred on minorities under Article 30 is only to ensure equality with the majority and not intended to place the minorities in a more advantageous position vis-a-vis the majority. There is no reverse discrimination in favour of minorities. The general laws of the land relating to national interest, national security, social welfare, public order, morality, health, sanitation, taxation, etc. applicable to all, will equally apply to minority institutions also. (iii) The right to establish and administer educational institutions is not absolute. Nor does it include the right to maladminister. There can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational character and standards and maintaining academic excellence. There can be checks on administration as are necessary to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound, so as to serve the academic needs of the institution. Regulations made by the State concerning generally the welfare of students and teachers, regulations laying down eligibility criteria and qualifications for appointment, as also conditions of service of employees (both teaching and non-teaching), regulations to prevent exploitation or oppression of employees, and regulations prescribing syllabus and curriculum of study fall under this category. Such regulations do not in any manner interfere with the right under Article 30(1). (iv) Subject to the eligibility conditions/ qualifications prescribed by the State being met, the unaided minority educational institutions will have the freedom to appoint teachers/lecturers by adopting any rational procedure of selection. (v) Extension of aid by the State does not alter the nature and character of the minority educational institution. Conditions can be imposed by the State to ensure proper utilisation of the aid, without however diluting or abridging the right under Article 30(1). Again in paragraph-20, the Supreme Court held as follows:- An institution can have the services of good qualified professional teachers only if the conditions of service ensure security, contentment and decent living standards. That is why the State can regulate the service conditions of the employees of the minority educational institutions to ensure quality of education. Consequently, any law intended to regulate the service conditions of employees of educational institutions will apply to minority institutions also, provided that such law does not interfere with the overall administrative control of the management over the staff. 29. Thus, in Malankara, the Supreme court cleared all possible doubts, genuine or artificial, by holding in paragraphs 19 (iii) and 20 that any regulations to prevent exploitation or oppression of employees and any law intended to regulate the service conditions of employees of educational institutions, could not be construed as interfering with the right under Article 30 (1). Therefore, the contention that an aided minority institution is not amenable to Article 226, especially in relation to the dismissal of a Principal, is just fanciful. Hence we hold that the writ petition filed by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, challenging his dismissal from service, is certainly maintainable and the learned Judge was right in holding so. CHALLENGE TO THE DISMISSAL OF PRINCIPAL DR.T.CHINNARAJ JOSEPH JAIKUMAR (W.P.NO.9401 OF 2008 AND THE APPEALS ARISING OUT OF THE SAME): 30. It is seen from the narration of facts in paragraph-4 above, that the following sequence of events, ultimately led to the order of dismissal of the Principal:- 14.3.2008 the Principal applies for unearned leave on private affairs to go abroad with effect from 9.4.2008 to 2.5.2008. 8.4.2008 the Principal puts up a notice in the Notice Board of the College, to the effect that his tour was called off. He also informs the Director of Collegiate Education. 10.4.2008 the Bishop issues a letter to the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar describing him as Principal and Secretary in-charge and expressing hope that he had taken charge in the absence of the Principal. 12.4.2008 tussle between the Principal and the Vice Principal leading to locking up of the Principal's room, lodging of police complaint, campus unrest etc. 12.4.2008 the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar places the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar under suspension. 19.4.2008 the order of the Director of Collegiate Education, sanctioning the leave earlier sought for by the Principal, is received in the College and this order bears the date 11.4.2008 with the signature of the Superintendent of the Office of the Director, made on 17.4.2008. 19.4.2008 the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar, claiming to be the Principal and Secretary in-charge, convenes the meeting of the General Council (General Body of the Society) and the General Council passes a resolution to suspend the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, in contemplation of an enquiry into grave charges. Interestingly, it is in this meeting, that the General Council also passes a resolution appointing and authorising Dr.V.George Selvakumar to hold charge as Principal and Secretary until further orders, though the meeting on that occasion itself had been convened only by him as the Principal and Secretary in-charge. 28.5.2008 a meeting of the General Council convened by Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar approves the order of suspension of the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar, passed by the Principal on 12.4.2008. This meeting also appointed Dr.P.R.Anbudurai as the Vice Principal. 17.6.2008 a memorandum of charges is issued by the Bishop against the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar. The charges framed against him are (i) that he deliberately desisted from taking classes from 1.6.2006 to 31.3.2008, thereby violating Rule 1 of the Code of Conduct, though even a Principal is required to take classes; (ii) that despite the order of suspension passed on 19.4.2008, he did not obey the same; (iii) that after applying for leave, he entered into the College and obstructed the Vice Principal from discharging his duties, without formally cancelling the leave sought for in a manner known to law; and (iv) that he obstructed the Principal in-charge from performing his duties by organising a demonstration within the College campus and organising press meets and also responsible for publication of derogatory news items in papers and magazines. 2.9.2008 the Enquiry Officer appointed allegedly by the Governing Council issues a notice of enquiry to the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar. 9.9.2008 Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar writes a letter to the Bishop, challenging the suspension as well as disciplinary proceedings, as illegal and without authority. Nevertheless, he also seeks copies of certain documents, so as to give appropriate reply to the charges. 10.9.2008 the Enquiry Officer holds an enquiry ex-parte, since the delinquent does not participate. 13.9.2008 the Bishop forwards a copy of the enquiry report dated 12.9.2008 and calls upon Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to appear before the Governing Council and submit his explanation to the enquiry report, in person on 22.9.2008. 22.9.2008 Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar sends a telegram to the Bishop as well as to the Enquiry Officer. He also sends a letter on the same date, questioning the validity of the proceedings. Since he was continuing as Principal on that date, he also challenged the veracity of the statement of the Enquiry Officer that the enquiry was held in the campus of the College. 22.9.2008 the resolution impugned in W.P.No.9401 of 2008 is passed, resolving to dismiss Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar and to appoint Dr.V.George Selvakumar in his place as the Principal. 31. The above sequence of events are borne out both by the respective pleadings and by the records. Therefore, the above dates and events can be taken to be unassailable. It is from these sequence of events that we may now have to retrieve the truth and find out the solution to the problem on hand. 32. The leave application of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar and the events that took place upto 19.4.2008, make two things very clear viz.,:- (i) Though the leave application was made on 14.3.2008, for proceeding on leave from 9.4.2008, the sanction for the leave was granted by the Director of Collegiate Education, only by an order dated 11.4.2008, issued on 17.4.2008 and received in the College only on 19.4.2008. In other words, the Principal was expected to proceed on leave from 9.4.2008, but he did not receive the sanction order at least till the date of departure. The Bishop now contends that on earlier occasions, the Principal did proceed on leave even before the sanction order was received and hence he could have adopted the same procedure this time also. But such a contention is very hard to accept. If a person holding a pivotal post (like Principal), proceeds on leave even before it is sanctioned, it could always be taken exception to. Therefore the fact that the Principal had done so on earlier occasions, is not a good precedent for the management to compel him to do so again and again. A Principal proceeding on leave without receiving a sanction order can be found fault with, but a Principal not proceeding on leave, for want of a sanction order cannot be said to be at fault. (ii) The records show that the Principal did not actually avail the leave. Though the Bishop has taken a stand in the counter affidavit that the Principal absented himself on and from 9.4.2008, the charge framed by the Bishop himself exposes the falsity of such a stand. Charge No.3 against the Principal is that the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar did not cancel his leave application in a manner known to law, but entered the college and obstructed the Vice Principal from acting as the Principal. Therefore it is clear that the Principal was in fact available physically. The charge that he ought to have cancelled the leave in a manner known to law, before coming to college, is reflective of a wrong understanding of the law on the point. An employee has no right to proceed on leave, especially on unearned leave on private affairs, without a sanction. If the relationship between the employee and the employer is good, it may be open to the employee to proceed without a sanction and it may be open to the employer to grant a post facto sanction. The question of cancelling the leave application would arise only after the leave is sanctioned. If the leave applied for is not sanctioned, till the date of the intended commencement of leave, the employee has no business to proceed on leave. If he is not entitled to proceed on leave, for want of sanction in writing, there is no question of his seeking cancellation. In other words, a leave application which is not sanctioned till the intended date, need not be cancelled. A leave application is not like an application for voluntary retirement, where withdrawal before the acceptance is necessary. 33. Once it is admitted that till 9.4.2008, the intended date of departure of the Principal, the sanction order was not received, then it follows as a corollary that he was entitled to, nay, duty bound to attend College, which is what he did. The allegation on the side of the Bishop that the Principal did not attend College from 9.4.2008 is falsified by the charge memo. It is also falsified by the very letter of the Bishop dated 10-4-2008 by which he appointed the Vice Principal as Principal in charge. In that letter there is no whisper that the Principal has absented himself from 9-4-2008, necessitating the appointment of the substitute. Actually, the very fact that the Principal attended the College, appears to be the actual grievance of the Bishop. Admittedly, the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar was not instructed to abstain nor placed under suspension till the meeting held on 19.4.2008. Therefore, it is clear even on admitted facts that the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar was actually functioning as the Principal during the said period and was lawfully entitled so to function. 34. Under bye-law No.IV(iii)A(a), the Principal is the head and official correspondent for the College and the Secretary of the Governing Council. Under bye-law No.IV(iii)B(a), the Vice Principal is empowered to perform the duties of the Principal in the absence or inability of the Principal . The Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar was thus entitled to perform the duties of the Principal, only in the absence or inability of the Principal. During the period from 8.4.2008 upto 19.4.2008, the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, was neither absent nor under any disability. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar to perform the duties of the Principal and adorn the mantle of Secretaryship of the Society. 35. While so, it is perplexing as to how the Bishop issued a letter on 10.4.2008 to the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar, describing him as the Principal and Secretary in-charge, when the Principal was neither absent nor under any disability to attend College either before or on 10.4.2008, the date of the letter. In any case, despite describing Dr.V.George Selvakumar as the Principal and Secretary in-charge, the letter of the Bishop dated 10.4.2008 made it clear that the assumption of charge by Dr.V.George Selvakumar, of the post of Principal and Secretary in-charge, was in the event of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar on leave . That event never happened and hence Dr.V.George Selvakumar could not have assumed charge as Principal and Secretary. 36. But unfortunately, the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar, was emboldened by the letter of the Bishop dated 10-4-2008, to attempt to stage a coup on 12.4.2008, despite the presence of the Principal, leading to certain unpleasant incidents in the campus. This date 12.4.2008 consequently became the 9/11 in the history of this age old and reputed institution. The attempt made by the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar on the strength of the Bishop's letter dated 10.4.2008 to assume charge as Principal and Secretary, even though the Principal was not absent or disabled, was clearly contrary to bye-law No.IV(iii)(B)(a). It was also violative of the very terms of the Bishop's letter to him dated 10.4.2008, which merely expressed a hope that he would have taken charge in the event of the Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar on leave . 37. It is only after the college campus became a war zone on 12.4.2008 that the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar convened a meeting of the Governing Council on 19.4.2008. Therefore, did he have the power to do so, is the next question to be considered. 38. Bye-law No.V.3 of the bye-laws reads as follows:- 3. Meetings. (a) All meetings shall be called by the Secretary in consultation with the President. (b) Regular meetings may be held at any time, but shall ordinarily be held in August and March. Emergency meetings may be called by the Secretary with at least three days' notice. Special meetings shall be called on receipt of a written request therefor by not less than four members of the Council. Such request must state the business to be transacted. No other business shall be transacted at the meeting. (c) The quorum for a meeting shall be eight members. 39. It is very clear from bye-law No.V.3 that all meetings of the Governing Council shall be called by the Secretary in consultation with the President. While regular meetings are to be held in August and March, emergency meetings are to be called by the Secretary with at least 3 days notice. Special meetings may be called on receipt of a written request by not less than 4 members. 40. In the light of the above bye-law No.V, the very meeting convened by Dr.V.George Selvakumar on 19.4.2008, usurping to himself, the post of Secretary, was wholly illegal. The meeting held on 19.4.2008, was not convened by the Secretary, as per bye-law No.V.3(a), since Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar and not Dr.V.George Selvakumar was the Secretary on that date. The meeting was also not an emergency meeting nor a special meeting, in terms of clause V.3(b) of the bye-laws, since the Secretary did not convene the meeting with 3 days notice nor was it convened on a written request by 4 members. Therefore the meeting convened on 19.4.2008, at the instance of Dr.V.George Selvakumar was wholly illegal and contrary to bye-laws. Consequently, the two resolutions passed in the said meeting (i) suspending the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar and (ii) appointing Dr.V.George Selvakumar as the Principal and Secretary in-charge, are also illegal. 41. Incidentally, the conduct of the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar is also dubious. As we have seen from the narration of facts in paragraph-4 above, Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar was selected and appointed as the Principal, by the resolution of the Governing Council dated 22.5.2006. After 2 years of such appointment and after all the ugly incidents that took place between 10.4.2008 and 19.4.2008, suddenly wisdom dawned upon Dr.V.George Selvakumar that the very appointment of Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar was illegal. Therefore, Dr.V.George Selvakumar filed a writ petition W.P.No.5460 of 2008 in June 2008, challenging the resolution of the Governing Council dated 22.5.2006, selecting Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar for appointment. But that writ petition was dismissed in limine, by a learned Judge of this Court, on 20.6.2008, even at the stage of admission. Interestingly, W.P.No.5460 of 2008 was filed by Dr.V.George Selvakumar in June 2008, against the very Governing Council, of which he claimed to be acting as Secretary from 10.4.2008. Therefore he was perhaps the petitioner as well as the respondent in that writ petition. It is an irony that this very same person, who filed a writ petition challenging his non selection to the post of Principal, raises the question of maintainability of the writ filed by the Principal against his dismissal from service. 42. We summoned the records relating to W.P.No.5460 of 2008, from the Registry and found that though the writ petition was filed in June 2008, Dr.V.George Selvakumar did not think fit to make any averment in his affidavit, relating to the events that happened on and from 9.4.2008, culminating in the so called suspension of the Principal on 19.4.2008. As a matter of fact, Dr.V.George Selvakumar himself was placed under suspension by the Principal on 12.4.2008 and this fact was also not referred to in the affidavit. He was thus guilty of suppression of material facts in the previous writ petition. Even in the writ petition now filed by him representing himself to be the Secretary, he has not disclosed anything about the previous writ petition filed by him challenging the appointment of the Principal. This goes to show that he had a hidden agenda, for calling for a meeting of the Governing Council, on 19.4.2008, without the authority of law. 43. After passing the resolution on 19.4.2008, in the above manner, suspending the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, the same Governing Council decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Principal. Accordingly, a charge memo dated 17.6.2008 was issued to the Principal. We have already extracted the charges in an earlier paragraph. Except Charge No.1, which related to the alleged failure of the Principal to take classes, all the other 3 charges revolved around the leave application, its withdrawal and the events that preceded and succeeded the resolution dated 19.4.2008. Thus, the charge memo was clearly a by-product of the meeting convened by Dr.V.George Selvakumar on 19.4.2008. 44. Both groups raised serious disputes about the membership of the persons who attended the meetings of the General Council on three occasions viz., (i) on 19.4.2008, in which a resolution was passed suspending the Principal; (ii) on 28.5.2008, in which a resolution suspending the Vice Principal was passed and (iii) on 22.9.2008, in which a resolution was passed dismissing the Principal from service. Both groups filed Form-VII before the Registrar of Societies. However, the original Minute Books of the Governing Council were produced before Court by the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar, when we summoned them. 45. The learned single Judge found that the question as to who were actually the members of the Governing Council on those relevant dates, was a disputed question of fact into which a Writ Court cannot go. To this extent, the learned Judge is also right. 46. However, the Court can certainly take note of two things viz.,(i) it was not very essential for the Court to find out the validity of the membership of those who attended the meetings on the above three dates since it was not the central axis around which the 3 writ petitions had to spin; (ii) in any event, the question was not camouflaged in codes and ciphers, requiring the services of a Cryptographer to break. As we have observed earlier, the Society has only a membership of 14 even in the General Body, as seen from the bye-laws. The very name of the Society is "Governing Council of American College". The members of the General Body are as follows:- (1) Principal. (2) Vice Principal. (3) Bursar. (4) Two permanent members of the Faculty elected by the permanent members of the Faculty. (5) Bishop. (6) One person nominated by the Executive Committee of Diocesan Council of Madurai and Ramnad. (7) One person appointed by Synod of Church of South India. (8) Two Persons nominated by All India Association for Christian Higher Education for Tamil Nadu Region. (9) Three persons co-opted by the Council. (10) One member nominated by the Madurai University. 47. Till 9.4.2008, the date on which the Principal was originally expected to proceed on leave, no dispute had arisen with regard to who were the members of the Society. Even as on 9.4.2008, there could not have been any dispute about who was - (i) the Principal (ii) the Vice Principal (iii) the Bursar (iv) the Bishop (v) members of the permanent faculty and (vi) the member nominated by the Madurai University. By calling upon (i) the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council of Madurai and Ramnad, (ii) the Synod of Church of South India and (iii) the All India Association for Christian Higher Education, to furnish details, the names of persons actually nominated by them as on 9.4.2008 could also be found out. This process would actually make available the names of 11 out of 14 members of the General Body. Once the 11 members out of a 14 member-General Body is identified, the remaining 3 members (to be co-opted) could also be fixed by finding out who were actually co-opted by the Council. Therefore, the issue was actually not as complicated as is projected by the appellants. 48. However, we do not wish to carry out the above exercise, for it is beyond the scope of the writ appeals on hand. We have just recorded the above aspects only to point out that it was not something which was beyond comprehension. 49. Coming back to the events that followed the charge memo, it is seen that the Principal did not submit an explanation to the charge memo, but questioned the validity of the proceedings. When the Enquiry Officer issued a notice of enquiry dated 2.9.2008, the Principal sent a letter dated 9.9.2008, seeking copies of certain documents to enable him to give a reply. But unfortunately, that letter was not even replied to by the Bishop to whom it was addressed. The copy of that letter was also marked to the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer could have rejected or accepted the request made by the Principal in his letter dated 9.9.2008 and called upon him to attend the enquiry. But he did not do anything. On the contrary, the Enquiry Officer, in the penultimate paragraph of the enquiry report, claims that the letter was received after he concluded the enquiry ex parte and went back to his residence. 50. Be that as it may, 15 witnesses appeared before the Enquiry Officer and filed their proof affidavits. 15 documents were taken on record as exhibits. Dr.V.George Selvakumar was examined as witness No.4 and the Bursar Dr.M.Davamani Christopher was examined as witness No.6. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 12.9.2008 and the same was communicated to the Principal by the Bishop on 13.9.2008. 51. Thereafter, a meeting of the Governing Council took place on 22.9.2008, in which 9 persons participated. Two out of those 9 persons were Dr.V.George Selvakumar and Dr.M.Davamani Christopher. It is this Committee which passed the resolution dismissing the Principal and appointing Dr.V.George Selvakumar in his place as Principal. Thus, Dr.V.George Selvakumar played a key role in the entire drama that unfolded in all the events that took place from 12.4.2008 to 22.9.2008. 52. Interestingly, bye law No.V.3(c), which we have extracted above, prescribes that a quorum for any meeting shall be 8 members. In the meeting held on 22.9.2008, there were 9 persons, out of whom 2 deposed in the enquiry as witnesses 4 and 6. Thus, the witnesses also adorned the mantle of Jury/Judges. If these two persons had recused themselves, from being the "gentlemen of the jury(?)", only 7 persons would have been there at the meeting, which was not sufficient to constitute the quorum. It is also to be noted that there is a dispute about the membership of even the other persons who attended the meeting. Though the by laws mandate the presence of a nominee of the University, in the Governing Council, there was none on 22-9-2008. We need not even go into the said dispute, since two out of 9 persons who attended the meeting, were witnesses-turned-Judges. 53. In The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K.Ratna and others {1986 (4) SCC 537}, a question arose about the correctness of the President, Vice President and other members of the Disciplinary Committee, participating in the meeting of the Council, held to consider the enquiry report and to decide on the punishment. The Supreme Court held in paragraphs-25 and 26 as follows:- 25. We must remember that the President and the Vice-President of the Council and three members of the Council compose the Disciplinary Committee. The President and the Vice-President do certainly hold significant status in the meetings of the Council. A member whose conduct has been the subject of enquiry by the Disciplinary Committee ending in conclusions adverse to him can legitimately entertain an apprehension that the President and the Vice-President of the Council and the other members of the Disciplinary Committee would maintain the opinion expressed by them in their report and would press for the acceptance of the report by the Council. To the member whose conduct has been investigated by the Committee, the possibility of the Council disagreeing with the report in the presence of the President and the Vice-President and the other members of the Committee would seem rather remote. His fears would be aggravated by the circumstances that the President would preside over the meeting of the Council, and would thus be in a position to control and possibly dominate the proceedings during the meeting. We do not doubt that the President and the Vice-President, and also the three other members of the Disciplinary Committee, should find it possible to act objectively during the decision-making process of the Council. But to the member accused of misconduct, the danger of partisan consideration being accorded to the report would seem very real indeed. 26. The objection on the ground of bias would have been excluded if the statute had expressed itself to the contrary. But nowhere do we find in the Act any evidence to establish such exclusion. It is true that by virtue of Section 17(3) it is obligatory that the Disciplinary Committee should be composed of the President and the Vice-President of the Council and three other members of the Council. While that is so, there is nothing in the Act to suggest that the meetings of the Council must always be presided over by the President or the Vice-President, and that no meeting can be held in their absence. We find that Regulation 140 framed under the Act contemplates that the Council may meet in the absence of the President and the Vice President, and provides that in their absence a member elected from among the members who are present should preside. There is an element of flexibility which makes it possible for the Council to consider the report of the Disciplinary Committee without the participation of the members of the Committee. Because of the 'flexibility' potential in the scheme, the doctrine of necessity, to which reference has been made on behalf of the Institute, cannot come into play. We must admit that it does appear anomalous that the President and the Vice-President of the Council should be disabled from participating in a meeting of the Council because they are bound by statute to function as the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, and were it not for the factor of flexibility which we see in the scheme, we would have been compelled to the conclusion that the Act implies an exclusion of the doctrine of bias. 54. In The Syndicate, Anna University and others vs. Dr.N. Lingappan and others {2006 Writ L.R. 855}, a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the same issue, with respect to a statutory appeal. The Vice-Chancellor of the Anna University, acting as the disciplinary authority, imposed a penalty, as against which the delinquent filed an appeal to the Syndicate. In the Syndicate meeting held to consider the appeal, the Vice-Chancellor also participated. His participation in the meeting was held to have vitiated the decision of the Syndicate, by the learned single Judge. On appeal to the Division Bench, the University contended that the Vice-Chancellor is the ex officio Chairman of the Syndicate under Section 17(3) of the Anna University Act, 1978 and hence he is bound to be part of the Syndicate proceedings. It was also argued in that case that the delinquent admitted the charge in the enquiry and pleaded for a lenient penalty. But the Division Bench overruled the contentions of the University and held that it will be against the canons of justice that the punishing authority is also part of the appellate mechanism . Thus, in Anna University case, the Division Bench of this Court overruled even the doctrine of necessity, despite a statutory prescription enabling the Vice-Chancellor to participate. Therefore, if the doctrine of bias can be applied even at the stage of appeal, it should certainly be applied at the stage of the original proceedings. 55. In Valliappan K.M. vs. Joint Director of School Education {2006 (4) CTC 471}, relied upon by the learned single Judge in his order under appeal, the Full Bench of this Court held that the participation of the members of the School Committee in the disciplinary proceedings as witnesses and their subsequent participation in the deliberations of the School Committee while deciding the penalty to be imposed, amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. 56. The law laid down in the aforesaid decisions apply in all fours, to our case. As we have stated earlier, the meeting held on 19.4.2008 was convened by Dr.V.George Selvakumar, usurping to himself the post of Principal and Secretary in-charge, contrary to the bye-law which permitted the Vice Principal to act as such, only in the absence of or inability of the Principal. It was in that meeting that the Principal was ordered to be placed under suspension. Subsequently, Dr.V.George Selvakumar filed a writ petition in June 2008, challenging the appointment of the Principal in May 2006. In the background of these facts, his appearance as a witness in the enquiry and his participation in the meeting held on 22.9.2008, certainly demonstrated beyond any pale of doubt, the existence of bias. What is more, Dr.V.George Selvakumar also had the blessings of the Bishop throughout. Therefore, the conclusion that the entire proceedings are vitiated, is not only inevitable but also irresistible. 57. Once we find that the whole proceedings are vitiated, then there can be no second thought as to the relief that should be granted to the victim of such proceedings. But the learned Judge felt intimidated by the controversies regarding the membership of the Council and the dispute as to whether those who participated in the meeting held on 22.9.2008 were the actual members or not. Consequently, the learned Judge stopped with a mere declaration that the resolution dated 22.9.2008 is bad. But, in our considered view, these controversies need not deter us from taking our conclusion to its logical end, since we have found the whole proceedings, starting from the nomination of the Vice-Principal to act as the Principal and Secretary in-charge on and from 10.4.2008, his convening of the meeting on 19.4.2008, the resolutions passed therein and the culmination of those proceedings in the dismissal of the Principal by the resolution dated 22.9.2008 are wholly illegal. This is especially so, since 3 out of 4 charges framed against the Principal related to his withdrawal of the leave application and the events that happened after the resolution dated 19.4.2008. Therefore, we hold that the entire proceedings against Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar are vitiated and hence he is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 58. A contention was raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar ought to have appeared before the Governing Council on 22.9.2008 and objected to the presence of Dr.V.George Selvakumar and Dr.M.Davamani Christopher. Since he did not even appear before the Council, the learned Senior Counsel contended that he cannot be heard to raise such a contention now in the writ petition. 59. The above objection cannot be sustained for the following reasons viz., (i) the Principal could not be expected to have a premonition that those two persons (witnesses) are likely to participate in the deliberations on 22.9.2008; (ii) in any case, as observed by the Supreme Court in Rattan Lal Sharma vs. Managing Committee Dr.Hari Ram Higher Secondary School {1993 (4) SCC 10}, when a plea goes to the root of the matter and is based on admitted and uncontroverted facts and does not require any further investigation into a question of fact, the Court is duty bound to go into the same. It was observed in paragraph-12 of the said decision that the bias of one of the members of the inquiry Committee, percolated throughout the inquiry proceeding, vitiating the principles of natural justice and making the findings of the Committee, the product of a biased and prejudiced mind. The case on hand is similar and the illegality of procedure is so patent and loudly obtrusive that it leaves an indelible stamp of infirmity or vice which cannot be obliterated. (iii) Bye law No.VIII(a) clearly provides that even when the emoluments, status or privileges of any individual member of the General Council are to be discussed in any meeting of the Council, the Chairman should first invite the individual to make a statement and the member should thereafter retire from the meeting till the matter is discussed and settled. Therefore, even without the Principal appearing before the Council on 22.9.2008 and objecting to the presence of those witnesses-turned-Judges, they should have retired on their own accord, in keeping with the spirit of bye law No.VIII(a) and in keeping with the high traditions of fair play, justice and good conscience. Since they failed to do so, we have no hesitation in holding the entire proceedings to be vitiated. 60. Moreover, we do not think that the Principal deliberately abstained from participating in the enquiry. The first and only notice of enquiry sent by the Enquiry officer, is dated 2-9-2008. In response to this notice, the Principal sent a letter, not merely questioning the validity of the proceedings but also seeking copies of certain documents. Neither the enquiry officer nor the Bishop rejected the request, before proceeding ex parte with the enquiry on 10-9-2008. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the Principal deliberately failed to participate in the proceedings. In such circumstances, the whole proceedings are liable to be set aside with all consequential benefits to the Principal. DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE: 61. Coming to the reliance placed by the learned Judge on the report of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and the various directions issued by him in paragraph-90 of the judgment appointing Dr.P.R. Anbudurai, we are of the considered view that they are extraneous to the lis before the Court. There were actually only 3 writ petitions, one by the Principal challenging his dismissal and the other 2 filed in the name of the Governing Council, against the order of the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 14.8.2008 refusing to recognise the Vice Principal as the Principal and Secretary in-charge. Therefore the scope of these 3 writ petitions was confined only to the validity of the order of dismissal of the Principal and the correctness of the order of the Director of Collegiate Education. None of the writ petitioners invited any finding or prayed for the appointment of any person as an administrator. The parties did not come to court with any allegations of mismanagement or maladministration and prayed for appointment of an administrator. Therefore, the findings recorded in paragraphs-86 to 89 of the judgment and the directions issued in paragraph-90 of the judgment, were beyond the scope and purview of the writ petitions and hence they cannot be sustained. Moreover, the report of the State Commission for Women was not placed before the Court in an appropriate manner, to enable all the parties to submit their objections to the report. Therefore the findings recorded in paragraphs-86 to 89 of the judgment and the directions issued in paragraph-90 of the judgment on the basis of the Commission's report, are to be set aside. CHALLENGE TO THE DIRECTOR'S ORDER DATED 14.8.2008: 62. Now let us come to the two writ petitions W.P.Nos.7844 and 9760 of 2008 (out of which W.A.Nos.790 of 2008 and 12 of 2009 arise), which challenged the order dated 14.8.2008 of the Director of Collegiate Education. By this order dated 14-8-2008, the Director of Collegiate Education did two things. He set aside (i) the suspension of the Vice Principal Dr.V.George Selvakumar and the Bursar Dr.M.Davamani Christopher ordered by the Principal and (ii) set aside the change of Secretaryship from Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar to Dr.V. George Selvakumar. 63. The above order of the Director of Collegiate Education was challenged in one writ petition by the Governing Council represented by the Bishop and Chairman. It was challenged in another writ petition in the name of the Governing Council by Dr.V.George Selvakumar representing himself as the Principal and Secretary in-charge. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Bishop on the ground that he was not competent under the bye laws to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the Governing Council. The learned Judge held the other writ petition also to be doubtful of maintainability, since the very nomination of Dr.V.George Selvakumar as Principal and Secretary in-charge was questionable. Yet, the learned Judge declared the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008 to be without jurisdiction, in view of the fact that many provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, are not applicable to a minority institution. 64. The above approach of the learned Judge, in holding a writ to be not maintainable and at the same time, declaring the order impugned therein to be void, does not appear to be correct. If a writ is not maintainable, the Court should desist from adjudicating upon the merits of the dispute, since any such adjudication would be an encroachment into a forbidden territory and would tend to have an influence upon any subsequent lis that the appropriate persons may bring forth. 65. In so far as the writ filed by the Bishop is concerned, it is seen from bye law No.IV(iii)(b) that the Principal is named as the official representative of the Council in all legal matters, except where the Council specifically determines otherwise. Therefore, in any proceeding instituted by the Governing Council, it should be represented only by the person authorised by the bye-laws. It is the Principal who is authorised by the bye-laws. If the Principal is at loggerheads with the Governing Council, resulting in the Governing Council not being able to ventilate its grievances in a Court of law, then the Governing Council should take advantage of the expression except where the Council specifically determines otherwise found in bye-law No.IV(iii)(b) and pass a resolution authorising someone else to institute the proceedings. It is only if this procedure is adopted that anyone other than the Principal and Secretary would be competent to institute the proceedings in the name of and for and on behalf of the Governing Council. Since this procedure was not adopted by the Bishop before instituting W.P.No.7844 of 2008, the dismissal of the said writ petition by the learned Judge cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the writ appeal W.A.No.12 of 2009 arising out of the said writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 66. Coming to the writ petition filed by Dr.V.George Selvakumar, describing himself as the Principal and Secretary, we have found in the earlier paragraphs that he was appointed by the Bishop by a communication dated 10.4.2008, as Principal and Secretary in-charge, in anticipation of the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar proceeding on leave from 9.4.2008. But the Principal did not actually proceed on leave. Therefore, the appointment of Dr.V.George Selvakumar as Principal and Secretary in-charge never came into effect. It cannot also come into effect, in view of the provision in the bye-laws that the Vice Principal can perform the duties of the Principal only in the absence or inability of the Principal. Therefore, the writ filed by him in W.P.No.9760 of 2008 for and on behalf of the Governing Council, describing himself as the Principal and Secretary, is not maintainable, though he was entitled to agitate the correctness of the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008, in his individual capacity, as he was affected thereby. Alternatively, he should have obtained a resolution of the General Council authorising him to institute the proceedings on behalf of the Council, by taking advantage of the exception provided in bye-law No.IV(iii)(b). Since Dr.V.George Selvakumar neither filed the writ in his individual capacity nor got a resolution of authorisation from the Governing Council, the writ petition filed by him in W.P.No.9760 of 2008, as rightly held by the learned judge, was not maintainable. Once it is held that the said writ was not maintainable, there was no question of recording a finding or adjudicating upon the correctness of the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008 impugned in the said writ petition. Therefore, the finding given by the learned Judge in paragraph-108 of the judgment, declaring the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008 as void ab initio and without jurisdiction, is liable to be set aside and the writ petition W.P.No.9760 of 2008 is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 67. In any event, it is represented that Dr.V.George Selvakumar retired on superannuation on 31.5.2009. Therefore, Form No.VI filed by the Bishop under Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Rules, substituting Dr.V.George Selvakumar as Principal and Secretary in-charge in the place of Dr.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar does not survive for adjudication any longer. Hence, an enquiry into the correctness of the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.8.2008, as on date, will only be an academic exercise. Therefore, both the writ petitions W.P.Nos.7844 and 9760 of 2008 are actually liable to be dismissed. But as stated earlier, there is a small hitch. Since W.P.No.7844 of 2008 was dismissed by the learned Judge, the appeal W.A.No.12 of 2009 arising out of the same can be dismissed without difficulty and hence it is dismissed. The other writ petition W.P.No.9760 of 2008 was held by the learned Judge as not maintainable, but nevertheless, the learned Judge said that it is disposed of , in view of the finding recorded by the learned Judge that the order of the Director is without jurisdiction. Thus, the petitioner in W.P.No.9760 of 2008 Dr.V.George Selvakumar, actually got a declaration even while his writ was held to be not maintainable. Therefore, we do not know why he has come up with a writ appeal in W.A.No.790 of 2008. Now that he himself has come up with an appeal, we allow the appeal, in exercise of the power under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, set aside the declaration issued by the learned Judge regarding the order of the Director. Once the order passed in the writ petition is set aside, the writ petition comes back to the surface and becomes amenable to an examination under Article 226 by us, in view of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Therefore, by exercising the said power, we dismiss the writ petition as not maintainable, in view of the fact that the appointment of the Vice Principal to act as Principal never came into effect and hence he was not entitled to represent the Governing council. 68. In the result---- (i) W.A.No.790 of 2008 is allowed and we set aside that portion of the order of the learned Judge whereby the proceedings of the Director of collegiate Education is declared as void. Consequently the writ petition W.P.No. 9760 of 2008 is taken up and is dismissed as not maintainable. Since the writ is not maintainable, the validity of the Director's order dated 14-8-2008 cannot be gone into. No costs. (ii) The appeal W.A.No.12 of 2009 is dismissed. No costs. (iii) W.A.Nos.796 and 797 of 2008 are partly allowed and the findings recorded in paragraphs-86 to 89 and the directions issued in paragraph-90 of the impugned judgment, on the basis of the report of the Tamilnadu State Commission for Women, are set aside. However the declaration made in W.P.No.9401 of 2008 that the dismissal of the Principal Dr.T Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar is vitiated, is sustained. Consequently, the interim arrangement made at the time of admission of these appeals, is vacated and the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education is directed to hand over charge of the administration to the Secretary. No costs. (iv) W.A.No. 312 of 2009 is allowed declaring the whole proceedings initiated against the Principal Dr.T.Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar culminating in the order of dismissal, to be illegal and further holding that he is entitled to continue as Principal with all consequential benefits without having to go to a Civil Court. No costs. Svn To 1.The Director of Collegiate Education, EVK Sampath Building, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, No.30, Vaidhyanatha Iyer Street, Madurai 20
CSIPASS,Puthiyara(A Fellowship of CSI Puthiyara Church members.(CALICUT(Kozhikode)-4,Kerala,South INDIA).This is a Registered SOCIAL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION under the Indian Societies Act, working for Social Justice,rights and benefits of church members and engaged in Social Work. We are not against any Laymen,Bishops,Priests or Church workers.But we are here to expose the people who give disregard to the Laws of the Land.
No comments:
Post a Comment