IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5688 OF 2008 (Arising out of  SLP(C) No.16922 of 2006)

Gwalior Mahila Mandal … Appellant (s)

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. … Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.   

2. The appellant is a society running several educational

institutions,  one  of  which  is  a  Mahila  Mandal  Higher

Secondary School at Danaoli. The third respondent claims to

be the only recognized Upper Division Teacher in the said

school.  

3. On  the  retirement  of  an  earlier  Principal  of  the

School  (Uma  Gadvekar),  the  appellant  by  letter  dated

29.6.2004,  sought  a  clarification  from  the  District

Education Officer, as to whether the third respondent being

the senior most teacher amongst the recognized staff should

be  appointed  to  the  post  of  Principal.  The  District

Education Officer sent a reply on 20.7.2004 stating that

after 4.1.2000 the State Government was neither filling up

the  vacant  posts  in  non-governmental  institutions  nor

providing grant for the posts that were filled up and the

institution  may  do so and  bear the cost  of running the

institution.  The  District  Education  Officer,  however,

suggested  that  the  third  respondent  may  be  permitted  to

work as In-charge Principal.  

4. The appellant accordingly posted the third respondent

as  In-charge  Principal  on  21.7.2004.  Thereafter  the

appellant transferred and posted the fourth respondent as

regular Principal of Higher Secondary School, Danaoli, vide

order  dated  3.8.2004.  The  fourth  respondent  was  earlier

working as Principal of the Higher Secondary School run by

the appellant at Kherapati.  

5. The third respondent being aggrieved by the posting of

fourth respondent as the Principal by order dated 3.8.2004

filed Writ Petition No.291 of 2005 seeking the following

two  reliefs  :  (a)  to  quash  the  order  dated  3.8.2004

appointing the fourth respondent as the Principal; and (b)

to direct the appellant to appoint her as the In-charge

2

Principal of the School. There was no other prayer in the

writ petition.  

6. A learned Single Judge of the MP High Court allowed

the petition by order dated 10.2.2006 and quashed the order

dated  3.8.2004  appointing  the  fourth  respondent  as

Principal of the Danaoli School. He also directed that till

a regular appointment was made to the post of Principal,

the third respondent may be permitted to serve as In-charge

Principal. The appeal filed by the appellant against the

said order was dismissed by a Division Bench by order dated

30.8.2006. The present appeal is filed challenging the said

order of the Division Bench.  

7. Two subsequent developments have made it unnecessary

to consider this appeal on merits. The first is that the

fourth  respondent  who  was  appointed  as  Principal  by  the

appellant  and  whose  appointment  was  quashed  by  the  High

Court  has  left  the  service  of  the  appellant  and  is  no

longer the Principal. It is stated that thereafter one Ajay

Upadhya, a Lecturer working in an other institution run by

the appellant, was transferred and posted as the Principal

of the Danaoli School and he has also left the service of

the  appellant.  According  to  the  third  respondent,  one

Radhika  Neema  another  Lecturer  from  one  of  the  other

3

institutions of the appellant is presently the In-charge

Principal of the Danaoli School.  

8. The second development is in regard to the grant in

aid.  Earlier,  out  of  the  55  teaching  staff  of  the

Appellant, grant was being extended only in respect of two

posts, that is the post of Principal and one post of Upper

Division Teacher occupied by the third respondent. We are

informed that on the retirement of Uma Gadvekar, the post

of Principal also became a non-grant post. At present only

the  post  occupied  by  third  respondent  as  a  recognized

teacher is a post covered by the block grant. The fact that

other teachers are not recognized does not mean that their

appointments are illegal or irregular. It is stated that

recognition and grant was linked and there is no need for

recognition  in  regard  to  teachers  appointed  non-grant

posts. The appellant claims that it has already written to

the  Department  to  stop  the  block  grant  which  is  being

extended with reference to only one teaching post, so that

it can become an unaided institution.  

9. As  noticed  above,  the  High  Court  has  granted  two

reliefs. As far as the first relief, which was the main

relief,  it  has  now  become  infructuous  as  the  fourth

respondent is no longer in service. In so far as the second

4

relief,  what  is prayed and  what is granted  is that the

third  respondent  should  be  permitted  to  work  as  an  In-

charge Principal until a regular Principal was appointed.

As noticed above, there was no prayer in the writ petition

that the third respondent should be appointed  as a regular

Principal.  

10. In  regard  to  the  second  relief,  on  the  facts  and

circumstances,  we  find  no  need  to  interfere  with  the

direction  of  the  High  Court  that  the  third  respondent

should be permitted to serve as In-charge Principal as she

is  the  seniormost  and  only  recognized  teacher  until  the

appellant appointed a regular Principal in accordance with

the Rules. We are informed that in pursuance of the order

of the learned Single Judge, the third respondent was in

fact appointed as In-charge Principal on 12.9.2006. When

the  order  of  the  High  Court  was  stayed,  the  appellant

posted someone else to work as Principal. As the present

incumbent Radhika Neema is said to be only an In-charge

Principal,  as  per  the  direction  of  High  Court,  third

Respondent  should  be  permitted  to  serve  as  In-charge

Principal till a regular Principal is appointed.  

11. But the applicability of the provisions of the Madhya

Pradesh  Ashaskiya  Shikshan  Sanstha  (Anudan  Ka  Pradaya)

5

Adhiniyam, 1978 and the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan

Sanstha  (Adhyapakon  Tatha  Anya  Karmachariyon  Ki  Bharti)

Niyam, 1979 would depend upon the fact whether it continues

as  an  aided  institution  or  unaided  institution.  The

appellant may decide whether it wants to continue as an

aided  institution  or  whether  it  wants  to  be  an  unaided

institution and take consequential action for appointment

of  a  regular  Principal.  If  it  becomes  an  unaided

institution,  obviously  the  Act  or  the  Rules  regulating

appointment will not apply, subject to fulfilment of the

prescribed  minimum  qualifications.  The  appeal  is

accordingly disposed of, without expressing any opinion on

merits.  

12. Learned  counsel  for  the  third  respondent  submitted

that even though the third respondent has been working in

the Danaoli School continuously, she has not been paid the

salary  from  November,  2004.  The  appellant  may  also  look

into this aspect and if she has been working in the School

and has not been paid salary, take steps to release her

salary, if there is no legal impediment.  

…………………………….J [R. V. Raveendran]

6

……………………………..J [Lokeshwar Singh Panta]

New Delhi;  September 16, 2008.

7