Binode Behari v. Union Territory of Manipur — 1968 DIGILAW 88 (GAU)

ORDER Shri Binode Behari, the applicant, who was the Head Pandit of Kalinagar Aided L. P. School at Jiribam, obtained rule nisi under Article 226 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India against the 12 respondents to show cause why the order of dismissal dated 2-12-1964 from service passed by the School Committee should not be quashed. 2. Kalinagar aided School in Jiribam was a private institution being managed by a Managing Committee which was formed from among the public interested in the cause of education and teachers of the School. It became a Government aided private School by receiving grant-in-aid from the Government of Manipur with effect from 1-12-1962 under the conditions laid down by the Government governing the Government aided private institutions (vide Ext. B/1). One of the conditions of Ext. B/1 is that the appointment of teachers of the private schools receiving grants-in-aid from the Government requires the approval of the Deputy Inspector of Schools. The respondents 7 to 12 were the members of the Managing Committee. They appointed the petitioner as Head Pandit of toe School with the approval of the Deputy Inspector of School on 4-6-1963 on the scale of pay of Rs. 40-1-60 (vide Ext. A/1). 3. Subsequently, there were a number of charges against the petitioner. The first charge related to the hunger strike which he undertook as a protest for non-payment of his salary. The second charge was in respect of the harsh treatment to some School boys and girls by assaulting them with a cane severely. The third charge was that the petitioner flouted the direction of the Managing Committee to hold classes in the morning as in the case of other Government aided L. P. Private Schools. The fourth charge was in respect of his having made a representation direct to the second respondent (Chief Commissioner of Manipur), the Minister and the third respondent (Director of Education, Manipur) about his pay. The Managing Committee held a meeting on 2-12-1964 and heard the petitioner. It passed a resolution on that date that the explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory and that he should tender his resignation on 31-1-1965, failing which his services would stand terminated with effect from 1-2-1965. Vide Ext. B/3. 4. The Managing Committee held a meeting on 2-12-1964 and heard the petitioner. It passed a resolution on that date that the explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory and that he should tender his resignation on 31-1-1965, failing which his services would stand terminated with effect from 1-2-1965. Vide Ext. B/3. 4. As the charges were discussed orally in the presence or the petitioner in the meeting held on 2-12-1964, a copy of the charges was furnished to him on 21-12-1964 vide Ext. B/4. The petitioner did not tender his resignation on 31-1-1965. So, the Managing Committee passed another resolution on 1-2-1905 terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 1-2-1965. A copy of the resolution was communicated to the petitioner. The Secretary of the Managing Committee submitted a report of the proceedings to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Jiribam. The latter called for a statement from the petitioner on 10-2-1965. The petitioner submitted a statement on 13-2-1965 in which he stated that all the matters mentioned in the charges were settled amicably in a general meeting held on 11-2-1965 and that he was dismissed illegally. But, the Deputy Inspector of Schools approved the action of the Managing Committee (vide Exts. B/5 and B/6). 5. The Government took over the institution on 1-2-1965. The petitioner issued notices of demand (vide Ext. A/5) on 12-8-1965 to all the respondents and filed the writ petition as his request for re-instatement was not complied with. 6. The respondents 1 to 6 allege that Kalinagar Lower Primary School, Jiribam was purely a private institution, the management of which was vested with its Managing Committee and that no writ lies against it. They further contend that the Government did not take over the liabilities of the School on 1-2-1965 and that, therefore, the petition is not maintainable against the respondents 1 to 6 who represent the Administration of Manipur and the Education Department thereof. 7. The point for determination is whether any writ can be issued against the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. As can be seen from Ext. B/1 Kalinagar Lower Primary School, Jiribam was purely a private institution, the management of which was vested with the Managing Committee, of which respondents 7 to 12 were members. Exhibit B/1 further shows that the Government issued certain instructions laying down the conditions for giving grants-in-aid to private Schools. 8. As can be seen from Ext. B/1 Kalinagar Lower Primary School, Jiribam was purely a private institution, the management of which was vested with the Managing Committee, of which respondents 7 to 12 were members. Exhibit B/1 further shows that the Government issued certain instructions laying down the conditions for giving grants-in-aid to private Schools. One of the conditions was that every appointment made by the School Committee should be approved by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, the breach of which would only entail the withholding of the grant of the Government. The School was not affiliated to any University. The Government also issued instruction, as can be seen from Ext. B/3 called "Government Aided Private School Teachers (Discipline, Punishment and Appeal) Rules of 1959" under which the private management of the School was directed to follow the rules mentioned therein with regard to disciplinary proceedings against its staff. But from the facts narrated above, it is seen that the Managing Committee did not follow the rules contained in Ext. B/3. It simply held a meeting on 2-12-1964 and heard the petitioner regarding the oral charges and asked him to resign on or before 31-1-1965 and resolved that in case he refused to resign, his services would stand terminated with effect from 1-2-1965. So, admittedly the Managing Committee did not follow the instructions contained in Ext. B/3. As such, his dismissal from service is not in accordance with the said instructions. 9. But, the institution was a private one. It was a domestic tribunal. The only penalty with which it could be visited in case of non-compliance with the instructions of the Government, would be withholding of the grant. Recently, I had occasion to deal with the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India with respect to domestic tribunals. Vide Imphal Sporting Club v. All Manipur Sports Association, Civil Writ Appln. No. 21 of 1968 : (AIR 1969 Mani 41) disposed of by me on 22-11-1968. In the case of a domestic tribunal, which is governed by its own rules, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. But, in the case of a statutory tribunal or any other tribunal formed under any statutory rules, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. There are two decisions relied on by the learned Government Advocate, which are directly to the point. But, in the case of a statutory tribunal or any other tribunal formed under any statutory rules, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. There are two decisions relied on by the learned Government Advocate, which are directly to the point. In Bishwaranjan Bose v. Ram Krishna Mission, Vivekanand Society, Jamshedpur, AIR 1958 Pat 653 the Court had to consider the effect of the Bihar Education Code in the case of a private teacher of Vivekanand High School at Sakchi, who was dismissed by the Managing Committee of the School, as in the present case. The Court held that the Bihar Education Code is a mere compilation of executive orders issued from time to time by the State Government for the guidance of the Director of Public Instruction and his subordinates, and, for efficient administration of the educational institutions in accordance with the educational policy of the State Government and that it is not a collection of statutory rules. It was further held that it was manifest that the rules have got no statutory value and that, therefore, no writ could be issued if there was any violation of the Rules. In R. Abdulla Rowther v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, AIR 1959 SC 896 , the Supreme Court had to consider the administrative or executive directions and orders issued under S. 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Government of Madras. It was held that the instructions were issued by the Government of Madras not for the information of the applicants for permits but for the information and guidance of the authorities that the instructions were not in the nature of statutory rules having the force of law, that their breach, if any, was not a justification for the issue of a writ of certiorari, though their breach might expose the officers to disciplinary or other appropriate action. As such, no writ can be issued against the defunct Managing Committee of the private School, of which the respondents 7 to 12 were members. The petitioner misconceived his remedy. 10. As such, no writ can be issued against the defunct Managing Committee of the private School, of which the respondents 7 to 12 were members. The petitioner misconceived his remedy. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the Government took over the institution on 1-2-1965 but that there was no resolution or contract under which the petitioners liabilities were taken over, that the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233 does not apply and that no writ can be issued against the respondents 1 to 6. This contention is not tenable, in as much, the Government stepped into the shoes of the Committee on 1-2-1965. But, as no writ lies against the Committee itself, which dismissed the petitioner from service, the question of liability of the respondents 1 to 6 does not arise. 11. The rule is, therefore, discharged and the petition is dismissed. But, under the circumstances, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Petition dismissed.