ANNE BESAINT NATIONAL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUC TION
LAWS(SC)-1982-12-8
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on December 16,1982

ANNE BESAINT NATIONAL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V. D. Tulzapurkar, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Mysore High Court at Bangalore on 25th June, 1973, in Second Appeal No. 674 of 1971.
(2.) The appellant-plaintiff is a Girls High School run by a registered Educational Society. The school has been recognised and is receiving aid under the Grant-in-Aid Code framed by the Mysore Government. One Smt. Radha L. Rao, permanent Headmistress, went on leave from 1st June, 1963; in this leave vacancy Smt. Jalajakshi (3rd respondent) was appointed as temporary acting Headmistress; her tenure was continued until further orders as Smt. Radha Rao extended her leave due to serious illness of her husband at Bombay. Since her method of work was found to be unsatisfactory the Management by its order dated 22nd July, 1964 relieved 3rd respondent of her duties as temporary acting Headmistress and she was directed to hand over charge to Smt. Manorama Rao who was appointed to officiate as temporary Headmistress until further orders. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent handed over charge to Smt. Manorama Rao and the Management intimated this change and sought approval thereto from the Deputy Director of Public Instruction (1st respondent) under Rule 9 (vii) of the Grant-in-Aid Code. The 3rd respondent submitted an appeal to the D. D. P. I. (1st respondent) against her reversion from the post of Headmistress. The 1st defendant instead of approving the change effected by the Management called upon the Management to explain why the 3rd respondent who was senior to Smt. Manorama Rao was reverted without giving her an opportunity to defend her position; the Management sent a reply explaining its case. By his order dated 24th Nov., 1964, the 1st respondent (D.D.P.I.) did not approve the change effected by the Management and further directed the Management to reinstate the 3rd respondent to her original position as Acting Headmistress till the permanent Headmistress rejoined duty after leave. The Management preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent (Director of Public Instruction) against that order. The 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal on 3-2-1965.
(3.) The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit being O. S. 50 of 1966 in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Mangalore for a declaration that the Orders dated 24-11-1964 and 3-2-1965 passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 directing the reinstatment of the 3rd respondent were illegal, wrongful, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and for injunction restraining them from enforcing the said orders against the Managment and also restraining the 3rd respondent from claiming any rights thereunder. The appellant-plaintiff's case was that the resinstatement of Smt. Jalajakshi as directed by the impugned orders was beyond the scope and purview of Rule 9(vii) of the Grant-in-Aid Code and that even the non-approval of Smt. Manorama Bai Rao's appointment as officiating Headmistress was not warranted by the terms of the said Rule and that while dealing with the Management's application seeking approval for the change the D. D. P. I. (1st respondent) has assumed appellate powers over the action of the Management which he did not possess and illegally directed the reinstatement of Smt. Jalajakshi. The suit was resisted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who contended that the impugned orders were legal and valid and in any case though the order of reinstatment may appear to be outside the ambit of Rule 9(vii) they had the power of withholding the approval for the change effected by the Management and as such the Court should not interfere with their orders. Respondent No. 3 apart from supporting the impugned orders, raised a further contention that, the Order of reversion was violative of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution and that the suit to challenge the impugned orders was not maintainable in a Civil Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.