CYRIL E. FERNANDES versus SR. MARIA LYDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 388 · Decided: 08-09-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
.ff 
388 
CYRIL E. FERNANDES 
v. 
SR. MARIA LYDIA & ORS. 
September 8, 1977 
[A. C. GUPTA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
"Aggrieied person" in an appeal-Locus sta11di to question the correctness 
of a judgnwr1t in appea/-Scopi of an_ app·eal. 
The apptallant's services were terminated with effect fron1 June 10, 1974 .. 
\\'ith the app1oval of the Director of Education under sub-rule (2) of Rule 74 
of the Grant-in-aid Code by the first respondent. 
The salary payable under 
the said rule was also duly paid to him. 
On June 22, 1974, the Director of 
Education telegraphically informed the first respondent to "Keep in abeyance" 
the proposed termination of the appellant's services. 
The telegram was follow-
ed by a letter dated July 25, 1974, addressed by an Under Secretary of the 
Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, directing the management of the school 
to reinstate the appellant and hold an enquiry in accordance \Vith sub-rule (3 _) 
of Rule 74 o-Ji the Code as, according to him, the termination was "'in reality'' 
llnder'Rule 74(3) for misconduct. 
The first respondent wrote back stating that 
the services of the appellant had already been terminated and the vacancy 
filled and that she disagreed with the vie\v that this was a case of termination 
under Rule 74(3). 
On October 8, 1974, the Director of Education informed 
the iirst respondent that as she had not "in1plemented the Government's order 
to re-instate· the teacher and to hold an enquiry under Rule 74(3), the main-
tenance grant other than that part of it that is meant for salary of staff to be 
pa.id your school has been stopped froin today until further orders." 
The 
rirst respondent, thereupon, moved the court of the Judicial Commissioner for 
Goa, Daman and Diu, at Panaji for a writ to quash the decision of the 
autho-
rities contan1ed in the two letters dated July 25, 1974 and October 8, 1974, 
itnpleading the .appellant as one of the respondents. 
The Judicial Commis-· 
-.ioner held; (i) that the tern1ination was under Rule 74(2) which did 
not 
r~qui1c an enquiry as contemplated in Rule 74(3); (ii) that the 
approvaf 
given by the Director of Education was valid and could not be subsequently 
superseded or revoked; and (iii) the direction to 
reinstate the 
teacher was 
without jurisdiction and not binding on the school and, therefore, the stoppage 
of tha grant-in-aid on the ground that the management of the school had 
declined to comply with that direction was wrong and not authorised under 
the Code. The respondent-teacher and not the State 
preferred an 
appeal 
against the judgment of the Judicial Comrr1issioner. 
Dismissing the appeal. by special leave, the Court, 
HELD ; The question, whether the Judicial Comn1issioner \\'as in 
error 
in issuing a writ to enforce the provisions of the Grant-in-aid Code cannot be 
raised in this appeal at the instance of the teacher. The scope of the appeal 
n1u~t be lin1ited to what directly concerns the appellant in the impugned judg-
n1ent. 
A peison can claim to be aggrieved, if his 
legal rights are 
directly 
affected. 
ln the r.1stant case the dispute was b:!t\\'een the management of the school 
and the Government relating to some of the rights and obligations they have 
against each other under the Grant-in-aid Code; the teacher, termination of 
whose services gave rise to this dispute, v.«ts impleaded as a proper party 1n 
the writ petition. 
The scope of the appeal is limited to whom the 
judgn1ent 
contains by which the appellant can be said to be aggrieved. 
The appellall:t 
is not directly concerned with the question whether the rules in the Grant-in-
<.tid Colle c.onferred on the manogement of the school an enforceable dght 
against the Governn1ent \Vhich is entirely a rrtatter between the management and 
the; Governmeot. [390 G-H, 391 A·B. E. Fl 
State of Assan1 & Anr. v. Ajit Kun1ar Shanna & Ors., [1965] l S.C.R. 
890 (897), applied. 
1 
\ 
;< 
r 
1 
i 
i 
-
/ 
CYRIL v. MARIA LYDIA (Gupta, !.) 
389 
ClvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 831 of 1976. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20-11-75 of the Judicial Com-
missioner Goa, Daman and Diu in Special Civil Application No. 100 
of 1974. 
!. 
R. K. Garg, S. C. Aganvala and V. !. Francis for the Appellant. 
!. P. Mehta, B. R. Agarwala and Janendra Lal for Respondent No. 
S. N. Anand and R. N. Sachthey for Respondents 2-5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
GUPTA, J. 
The appellant was employed as a tea

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.