 Online edition of India's National Newspaper Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tamil Nadu |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Tamil Nadu
MADURAI: Not only teaching staff, but also the non-teaching staff of private unaided colleges are entitled to file writ petitions against their employers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Madras High Court has ruled. Allowing four writ petitions filed in the Madurai Bench by dismissed employees of a private engineering college in Tiruchi, Justice S. Nagamuthu said that there could not be any distinction between teaching staff and others while applying the Article. He pointed out that the Supreme Court in Krishnamacharyalu’s case (1997) had held that private unaided educational institutions also were amenable to writ jurisdiction because they performed public duties by providing educational opportunities. On the contention raised by counsel for the Tiruchi college that the non-teaching staff did not perform any public duty such as imparting education, the Judge said: “Though this contention appears to be very attractive, I am not persuaded by the same.” While reading apex court judgements, one should not try to interpret them. The law laid down in those rulings binds the High Court and the latter was expected only to understand the judgement and the dictum there under in letter and spirit. If read in this context, it would keep things beyond the pale of doubt that the Supreme Court in Krishnamacharyalu’s case had held that the functions of the entire educational institution, as one unit, amounted to public duty. “Here, for imparting education, even non-teaching staff in the college are also doing some job. In the absence of non-teaching staff, the institution cannot run… Therefore, the writ remedy is available to them,” Mr. Justice Nagamuthu observed. Further, dealing with the merits of the present writ petitions, the Judge quashed the dismissal orders passed against the petitioners on the ground that they were not given opportunities to explain their stand. He directed the management of Sri Angalamman College of Engineering and Technology to hold fresh enquiry on the allegations levelled against the petitioners and pass final orders within two months. He further pointed out that the Supreme Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru’s case (1989) had held that the words — “any person or authority” — in the Article should receive a liberal meaning and not confined to statutory authorities and State instrumentalities.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Ergo | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|