Tika Ram Vs. Mundikota Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal & Ors [1984] INSC 135 (10 August 1984)
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S.
(J) ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
CITATION: 1984 AIR 1621 1985 SCR (1) 339 1984
SCC (4) 219 1984 SCALE (2)182
CITATOR INFO :
F 1990 SC 423 (7,8,9)
ACT:
Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ
Petition against a private body on the basis of non-statutory rules-Whether
maintainable.
School Code (Maharashtra State)-Nature
of-Non- statutory-Nature of proceedings under School Code-Quasi-
judicial-Director and Deputy Director of Education have no power to review
their decisions.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant was working as Headmaster of a
school run by Respondent No. 1, which was a private body. After an enquiry, the
management of the school reverted the appellant to the post of Assistant
Teacher. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Deputy Director of
Education. The Deputy Director, having found that the enquiry had been vitiated
on account of violation of principles of natural justice, set aside the order
of the management reverting the appellant and remanded the case to the
management for a fresh decision. The Deputy Director dismissed the management's
application for re-considering his decision on the ground that no such review
petition could be filed before him. The management appealed against this order
of the Deputy Director. The Director of Education dismissed the appeal. The
management filed a petition before the Director to reconsider the case. This
time the Director allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Deputy
Director remanding the case. The appellant filed a writ petition before the
High Court on the ground that the Director had no jurisdiction to review his
earlier order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the
teachers working in private schools could not enforce their right under Clause
77 and other connected clauses of the School Code which were not statutory
rules. Hence this appeal by special leave.
Allowing the appeal, 340
HELD: The order of the Director passed on the
review petition is set aside and that of the Deputy Director is restored.
[342H] The Court is aware of some of the decisions in which it is observed that
no teacher could enforce a right under the School Code which is non-statutory
in character against the management. But in the instant case, since the
appellant was not seeking any relief directly against the management, a private
body, but against the order passed in a quasi- judicial proceeding by the
Director, an officer of Government who is always amenable to the jurisdiction
of the Court, though in a case arising under the School Code and since the
Director had assumed a jurisdiction to review his own orders not conferred on
him, the appellant was entitled to maintain the petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution. [342E-F] On merits it is not disputed that neither the Deputy
Director nor the Director of Education had the power to review the order passed
by him earlier. The Director had affirmed the order of the Deputy Director by
his earlier order. The order passed by the Deputy Director remanding the case
to the management for holding a fresh enquiry thus became final. The Director
had no power to review his earlier order. [342G-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 3189 of 1984.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and
Order dated the 15th Day of December, 1982 of the Bombay High Court in Special
Civil Appln. 637 of 1977 Dr. N. M. Ghatate for the Appellant.
D. M. Nargolkar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH J. Special Leave granted.
In the year 1975 the appellant was working as
the Head Master of a High School which was being run by the Mundikota Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal, respondent No. 1, which was a private body. On account of
certain earlier events which need not be set out here the management instituted
a disciplinary enquiry against 341 the appellant and on July 7,1975, the
appellant was informed by the management that it had imposed on the appellant
the punishment of reversion to the post of Assistant Teacher which according to
the management was the substantive post held by him. Aggrieved by the above
order of reversion, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of
Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur contending that the enquiry had been
vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice and that he
had never held the post of an Assistant Teacher to which he had been reverted.
After hearing both the parties the Deputy
Director of Education passed an order dated October 3, 1975 setting aside the
decision of the management and remanding the case to the management for fresh
decision on the ground that the enquiry had been vitiated on account of
violation of principles of natural justice. Instead of filing an appeal against
that order, the management filed a review petition before the Deputy Director
himself on October 17, 1975. That was rejected by the Deputy Director by his
order dated November 11, 1975 on the ground that no such review petition could
be filed before him. Against this order the management filed an appeal before
the Director of Education and that was dismissed on May 12, 1976 affirming the
order of remand passed by the Deputy Directory. The management again filed a
petition before the Director of Education to reconsider the case, This petition
for review was allowed by the Director on November 26, 1976 and the order
passed by the Deputy Director on October 3, 1975 remanding the case to the
management for a fresh decision was set aside. Aggrieved by the said order
dated November 26, 1976, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High
Court of Bombay on the principal ground that the Director had no jurisdiction
to review his earlier order of May 12, 1976 by which he had dismissed the
appeal against the order of the Deputy Director. The High Court dismissed the
above writ petition holding that the appellant could not file a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order passed by the Director
on the ground that the teachers working in private schools could not enforce
their right under clause 77 and connected clauses of the School Code which were
not statutory rules. This appeal is filed against the above order of the High
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
It is not disputed that the Deputy Director
and the Director are officers of Government and the nature of functions
discharged by them while hearing appeals against orders made in disciplinary
342 porceedings is quasi-judicial in character. It is also not disputed that
neither of them has been authorised by the School Code to review their own
decisions and that in the absence of such power, an order made on review in
such quasi-judicial proceeding would be ineffective. In the writ petition the
appellant was not seeking any relief directly against the management on the
basis of the clauses in the School Code. If the management does not obey the
order passed by the Deputy Director or the Director, it is open to the State
Government to take such action under the School Code as may be permissible. In
such an event, the recognition accorded to the school may be withdrawn or the
grant-in-aid may be stopped. In the instant case the appellant is seeking a
relief not against a private body but against an officer of Government who is
always amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court. The appellant has merely
sought the quashing of the impugned order dated November 26, 1976 passed by the
Director on review setting aside the order of the Deputy Director. What
consequences follow from the quashing of the above said order in so far as the
management is concerned is an entirely different issue. In the circumstances,
the High Court was wrong in holding that a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution did not lie against the impugned order passed by the Director. We
are aware of some of the decisions in which it is observed that no teacher
could enforce a right under the School Code which is non-statutory in character
against the management. But since this petition is principally directed against
the order passed in a quasi-judicial proceeding by the Director, though in a
case arising under the School Code and since the Director had assumed a
jurisdiction to review his own orders not conferred on him, we hold that the
appellant was entitled to maintain the petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
On merits it is not disputed that neither the
Deputy Director nor the Director of Education had the power to review the
orders passed by them earlier. The Director had affirmed the orders of the
Deputy Director by his order dated May 12, 1976. The order passed by the Deputy Director on October 3, 1975 remanding the case to the management for holding
a fresh enquiry thus became final. The Director had no power to review his
earlier order. The High Court should have in the circumstances set aside the
order dated November 26, 1976 passed by the Director on review setting aside
the order passed by the Deputy Director. We, therefore, set aside the order
dated November 26, 1976 passed by the Director of 343 Education and restore the
order dated October 3, 1975 passed by the Deputy Director of Education
remanding the case to the management for holding a fresh enquiry. The
management may now proceed to hold the enquiry in accordance with law, if it
considers it necessary. The appellant is entitled to all consequential benefits
flowing from this order.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
H.S.K. Appeal allowed.
Back