http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: TIKA RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNDIKOTA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL& ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/08/1984

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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]

JUDGMENT:      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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. 344