The Much Awaited Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer

Following is an excerpt prepared by Prof. JohnSekar from the RDO's report served to
Party A (Principal & Secretary Dr. T. Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar) and
Party B (Bishop of Madurai Ramnad Diocese)
around 9.45pm on 2nd June 2008.
-----------------------------------------------------------

ORDERS OF THE COURT OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADURAI ON THE AMERICAN COLLEGE ISSUE UNDER SECTION 145 (1) DATED 2 JUNE 2008

Direction of the Hon. High Court dated 29 April 2008 to the RDO

To find out whether the Principal is in management of the College or the Vice Principal who has been nominated by the Bishop is in charge of the College. (p.3)

RDO

“While visiting the college on 30.04.2008… I found that the principal was attending to the day to day functioning of the College by occupying himself in the Office of the Principal in the College premises and … I permitted the Principal to continue to attend to the day to day functions of the College.” (p.4)

Proceedings of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court

08.05.2008: The Principal filed written statement supported by documentary and material proofs.
12.05.2008: The Party B represented by the Bishop filed written statement and other material evidences on 12.05.2008
26.05.2008: Arguments were heard
27.05.2008: Both parties filed their respective written arguments.

Party B’s argument on the principal’s leave

The proceeded on leave on 9th itself and as per Clause 4, the vice principal assumed charge as Principal in-charge on 9.4.2008.

RDO’s ruling

“It is an accepted fact that in the official hierarchy, the Head of Office can cancel the leave sanctioned by competent authority and rejoin duty any time at his convenience and after assuming charge, he can inform the Competent Authority.” (p.14)

Party B’s claim on the powers of the Governing Council on suspension of the Principal

The Private Colleges Regulation Act has no application for the suspension of the principal.

RDO’s ruling

“The averment of the B party is not relevant in so far the Regulation Act is a comprehensive statue binding on all the private colleges and in case of incongruence between the Bye-laws of a member college only the Statute will prevail.” (p.14)

RDO’s ruling on the party B’s claim that the secretary was changed in its Governing Council meeting held on 19 April 2008

According to Rule 9(2) of the private Colleges Rules, 1976, “it is clear that that any change in the Secretary of a Private College has to be made only after getting the approval of the Director of Collegiate Education. Hence the resolution passed by the Governing Council suspending the Principal has to be viewed in this context and until and unless the action of the Governing Council is approved by the Competent Authority, the Secretary can continue to exercise the powers conferred on him by the College Governing Council.” (pp.14-15)

Party B’s claim on the possession of the college

“Only the Governing Council is in possession of the management of the college.”

RDO’s ruling

This claim “can not be taken as such because the Governing Council, the apex body of the College need not trouble itself by going through the rigors of day to day administration of the College and only the agent appointed by the Governing Council, i.e. the Principal will have to attend to the day to day affairs and look after the management of the College.” (p.16)

RDO’s ruling on filing Form VI after 19.04.2008

According to the Hon. Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, “the orders of the District Registrar is only a ministerial act and hence no legality can be attributed in receiving and acknowledging Form VI by the district Registrar.” (p.17)

RDO’s ruling on other issues

“The legality of the resolution [dated 19 April 2008] as to whether the members are qualified to attend the Governing Council or the numbers constituting quorum were present and signed the resolution or the fact the whether the Secretary in-charge can call for a meeting of the Governing Council or the action of the Governing Council is within the ambit of law and the powers vested there on are the matters need to be agitated before the competent forum in accordance with law. (p.20)
“the failure on the part of B party to submit details [the order of the approval by the Director of Collegiate Education, the fact that the Governing Council was called for by authority competent to call for meeting with proper notice, and the resolution relating to suspension] before this Court raise doubt as to its credibility and hence the resolution of the Governing Council dated 19.4.2008 suspending the Principal raises doubt. (pp.20-21)
Hence to avoid unnecessary complications, in all fitness of things it shall be proper and appropriate the Governing Council meeting is called for and resolutions passed in conformity with the rules and regulations of the American College and further action pursued in accordance with such resolutions.” (pp.21-22)
I feel that justice shall be done if the status quo as prevailed in the American College as on 09.04.2008 …shall be continued till a complete adjudication is made by competent court of law. (p.23)

Hence, the RDO holds that

i. Dr. Chinnaraj Joseph Jaikumar (A Party) who was the Principal and Secretary as on 09.04.2008 before proceeding on leave shall continue to be the Principal and Secretary of the American College. (p.24)
ii. Dr. V. George Selvakumar (B Party) who was the Vice principal of American College as on 09.04.2008 shall continue to act as Vice principal of the American College; and (p.24)
iii. Thiru M. Davamani Christober who was acting as Bursar as on 09.04.2008 shall continue to be the Bursar of the American college. (pp.24-25)
iv. The aforesaid order shall continue till decided otherwise in the manner known to law by the appropriate forum. (p.25)

---------------------------------------------------