DEBIPADA BHATTACHARJEE Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order communicated by the Secretary, Silchar Collegiate School to the writ Petitioner. From the said order it appears that the Managing Committee of the School on 4th Feb/89 reverted the writ Petitioner from his original post of Vice Principal of the College with effect from 6.2.89 and in his place one Smti. Ratna De, a senior most Asstt. Teacher was promoted as Head Mistress on temporary basis. This order is available at Annexure 'C' to the writ petition.

(2.) IT has been stated in the writ petition that from June, 1974 to March, 1976 the writ Petitioner rendered his service in honourary capacity as a teacher of the school and thereafter from 1.4.1976 the Managing Committee of the school, i.e. Respondent No. 2 appointed him as Vice Principal of the said school with effect from 1.1.1983 vide letter dtd. 28.12.82 issued be the Principal, the Respondent No. 4. The service of the writ Petitioner was also confirmed by the Principal and copies of both the letters are available at Annexure 'B' and 'B -1' to the writ petition. But all of a sudden, the writ Petitioner received an order from Respondent No. 2 communicated vide letter dtd. 4.2.89 i.e. the impugned order by which he was reverted from the post. Thereafter the writ Petitioner approached the Inspector of Schools Cachar vide Annexure 'D' and thereafter the Inspector of School vide letter dtd. 17.2.89 forwarded the representation of the writ Petitioner to the Secretary of the said School asking for parawise report. The Inspector was directed not to give effect to reversion order. The copy of the letter of the Inspector dtd. 17.2.89 is available at Annexure 'E' to the writ petition. The writ Petitioner has stated that the school was duly recognised by the Govt. and the management of the School is governed by the Assam Aided H.S. High and Middle School Management Rules, 1976, It has also been stated that the Managing Committee of the school was confirmed as per the above rules and further the said Managing Committee was reconstituted in the year 1987 by the Inspector of School and it was also recognised by the State Govt. References may be made to the order dated 30 -5 -87 vide Annexure -G.

(3.) THE main question is whether a writ could lie. I have heard Mr. Uzir, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sarma; learned Counsel for the Respondent. The attention of this Court has been drawn by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to a decision of the Apex Court in Tikaram v. Mundikote Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. reported in, AIR 1984 SC p. 1621. In para 3 of the judgment it has been laid down by the Apex Court that it is true that no teacher could enforce a right under the school Code which is non -statutory in character against the Management, but where the writ petition filed by the Head Master of a Private School was directed against an order passed in a quasi -judicial proceeding by the Director of Education on review a jurisdiction not conferred on him and no relief was claimed by the Head Master against the Management, the writ petition would be maintainable.