- (1.) This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order dated 22nd January, 1972 rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 358 of 1971 dismissing the writ petition holding that the Regulations framed by the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh under Section 28(2)(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1955 have no statutory force and as such termination of service in violation of Regulations Nos. 71 and 79 does not entitle the appellant to a declaration that the termination was illegal and for a direction for his re-instatement in, service.
(2.) The matrix of the case in short, is that the appellant was appointed as Head Master by the Managing Committee of Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti, Korba on probation for a period of one year on a pay-scale of Rs. 250-10-290-15-350-EB-20-450 with effect from 3-7-1968. Meanwhile, the High School became a Higher Secondary School and as such on September 1, 1969 the Managing Committee appointed the appellant as principal temporarily on a. pay-scale of Rs. 275-25-300-15-405-EB-20- with effect from July 3, 1968. The above scale was made applicable to him with retrospective effect i.e. from July 3, 1968 F.N., the date of his appointment. The appointment letter further states as follows :- "........................ The appointment will be governed by the rules and regulations laid down by the Education Department of Madhya Pradesh State Government for the recognised Schools in the State unless and otherwise specified from time to time. The appointment can be terminated on one month's notice or pay thereof on either side." This School was established by Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti Korba, a body registered under the M.P. Non-trading Corporation Act, 1962. The Society under its bye-laws has a Foundation Committee which is its Governing Body and an Executive Committee, i.e. Managing Committee. On June 23, 1971 the Managing Committee dispensed with the services of the appellant with immediate effect by giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice. The appellant made a representation against this order to the Divisional Superintendent of Education who by his letter dated June 24, 1971 directed the Secretary of the School to rescind the order of termination of the services of the appellant and to hand over charge of the school to the appellant otherwise the recognition of the School will be withdrawn. This letter was written on the ground that the termination of the appellant was wrongful being in breach of Regulation 79. However, the appellant was not re-instated pursuant to the said letter. The appellant, therefore, moved a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. This, was registered as Miscellaneous Petition No. 358 of 1971. The writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of the said High Court and it was held that Regulation No. 71 as well as Regulation No. 79 framed by the Board of Secondary Education under Section 28(2)(d) of Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Adhiniyam, 1955 have no statutory force following the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Ram Pal Chaturvedi V. State of Rajasthan (1970) 1 SCC 75 and as such the termination of service of the appellant in violation of the procedure prescribed in Regulations Nos. 71 and 79 of the said Regulations would not render the impugned order null and void. It could at best be a wrongful dismissal from service by the master and the appellant's remedy is only by an action for damages he might have sustained in consequence of the breach of the master and servant contract. It was also held that the School in question was run by a private body and as such no writ of mandamus could be issued. The Court further held that an order cannot be made against the society compelling the re-instatement of the appellant as it is in the realm of contractual rights and obligations. The writ petition was thus dismissed. Against this judgment and order the instant appeal has been filed on special /leave before this Court.
(3.) In order to effectively consider the question whether these Regulations have got statutory force or not it is necessary to set out hereinbelow the relevant Regulations : "Regulation 61 : No Educational Institution shall be recognised, or continued to be recognised unless it complies with the following requirements, namely:- (1) that the Educational Institution shall comply with the conditions laid down in Chapter XII of these Regulations; (2) that there shall be a Managing Committee as defined under the Adhiniyam consisting of not more than 10 members of which two shall be the Head of the Institution and a nominee of the Educational Officer concerned and that the Governing Body of Managing Committee shall be registered under the Societies Registration Act. Regulation 71 : All Principals, Head Masters, Lecturers, and Teachers, except those appointed temporarily for a period of less than one year, shall be on probation for a term of one year which may be extended to two years. If after two years service any incumbent is continued in his appointment, he shall, unless the appointing authority, for reasons to be recorded in the writing, otherwise directs, be deemed to have been confirmed in that appointment. On being confirmed the incumbent shall sign a contract of service in the form one or two (appended to these Regulations) as the case may be, as soon as practicable. Regulation 79(l) The Managing Committee shall not terminate the services and reduce the pay of Principal or Head Master appointed on written contract without first obtaining Director's sanction for holding a full enquiry into the charges against him. The incumbent shall be given in writing a statement of the charges against him, and also be afforded an opportunity of defending himself. His previous services and character with reference to this confidential file and service book shall also be taken into consideration before arriving at a decision. (2) No decision as to termination of service or reduction of a Principal or a Head Master shall be valid, unless passed at Special Meeting by a majority of two-thirds of members of the Managing Committee. No such resolution shall be valid, if passed at an adjourned" meeting. (3) The Principal or Head Master has a right of appeal to the Director against decision of the Managing Committee. The decision of the Director shall be final.";