Second Appeal U/S 24 TN Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act Available For Even Minor Alterations Of Service Conditions: Madras HC

Madras High Court has recently observed that the second appeal under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 is not restricted to the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or termination of appointment alone.

The single-judge bench of Justice S.M Subramaniam has categorically stated that the appeal remedy before the tribunal under Section 24 extends to any alteration of service conditions in Section 23 after exhausting the right to seek relief before the competent authority, i.e, the first appeal.

Under the Act, the competent authority includes the Joint Director of Elementary Education (Aided Schools) and the tribunal empowered is the respective jurisdictional Principal Sub Court.

"The language employed in Section 24 is that a teacher or other person or the educational agency are entitled to prefer the second appeal. Therefore, even in respect of minor punishment falling under Section 23(b), the educational agency or the teacher or other person may file a second appeal... The second appeal is not restricted with reference to the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or termination of appointment alone...", the court observed.

After analysing Sections 23 and 24, the court underscored that the captions for each section alone cannot be said as determinative of the interpretation that must be given to them. According to the court, a constructive interpretation of the scope and language of the provisions as a whole must be taken into account. If that's the case, it would mean that second appeals before the Principal Sub Court would lie even in instances of orders to the detriment of pay or allowances of the school teacher. The court opined that the language of Section 24 as a whole is clear about preferring a second appeal if aggrieved by any order passed under Section 23 of the Act.

Section 23 is given as 'Appeal against orders of punishment imposed on teachers and other persons employed in private schools' whereas Section 24 is captioned as 'Second appeal in case of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or termination of appointment of teachers and other persons employed in private schools.'

"It is not as if first appeal can be filed against all orders and second appeal is restricted only for the termination, removal or reversion in rank. Once the first appeal is entertained and an order is passed on merits, then the second appeal would lie against all such orders under Section 24 of the Act before the Tribunal constituted.Therefore, it is unambiguously clear that against the order passed by the Original Authority/School Management, the first appeal lies before the competent authority under Section 23 of the Act and the Second Appeal lies before the Tribunal under Section 24 of the Act."

The writ petition before the High Court was preferred by a Secondary School teacher in a government-aided private school. According to the petitioner teacher, she faced the brunt of false imputations and an order of punishment was passed by the Joint Director of Elementary Education (Aided Schools).

Though the writ petition was filed seeking a relief in the form of direction to set aside the order of the respondent school followed by that of Joint Director's, the High Court opined that it cannot invoke writ jurisdiction. The power of judicial review is limited to the process through which a decision is taken by the competent authority in consonance with the provisions of the statute or rules, but not the decision itself.

"...the aggrieved person has to exhaust the statutory remedies provided under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity) for the better appreciation of facts. This apart, the factual findings recorded by the competent authority or the statutory authorities by conducting a full-fledged enquiry would be of greater assistance to the High Court for the purpose of the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the aggrieved person need not be deprived of an opportunity of an effective adjudication under the provisions of the Act."

Therefore, the court refused to undermine the provision for appellate remedy and asked the teacher to redress the grievance through the remedy given in the Act. After recording the findings of the ambit of the appellate remedy under Section 24, the court instructed the petitioner to approach the tribunal constituted under Section 24 in appeal against the order passed by the first appellate authority under Section 23.

For the ease of the petitioner, Justice S.M Subramaniam also transferred the writ petition to the tribunal for expeditious disposal by renumbering it as Second Appeal under Section 24. Accordingly, the case was disposed off.

Case Title: A. Thilakam v. The Joint Director/ Appellate Authority & Anr.

Case No: W.P.(MD) No.20302 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD) No.16911 of 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 61

Appearance: Mr T.Antony Arul Raj For Petitioner: Mr G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader For R1 Appellate Authority

Click Here To Read/ Download Order