DIPAK KUMAR BISWAS versus DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 06-03-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DIPAK KUMAR BISWAS 
V. 
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION & ORS. 
MARCH 6, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India: Article 136--Powers of the Court to 
enlarge relief. 
Service Law: Lecturer of private aided college-Status of-
C Wrongful termination of service of-Nature of relief-Whether entitled 
to declaration of continuance in service-Aided colleges-Whether 
statutory bodies. 
Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960: Assam Aided 
College Management Rules, 1965-Whether adopted in State of 
D Meghalya. 
The appellant, who was holding a permanent post in a Central 
Government department, was selected for the post of Lecturer in a 
private aided college in Meghalya. The order of appointment stated that 
it was subject to the approval of the first respondent. On his seeking 
E 
clarification from the Principal he was assured that the approval was a 
mere formality. Acting on the said assurance the appellant resigned his 
permanent post in the Government department and joined the college. 
However, he found his services terminated just within five months for 
want of prior approval of the first respondent. 
F 
A suit filed by the appellant challenging the order of termination 
and for a d~claration and permanent injunction was dismissed by the 
trial court. The first Appellate Court found that the Assam Aided 
Colleges Management Rules, 1965 had not been adopted by the State 
Government at the time of the appellant's appointment and that the 
Director of Public Instruction had acted wrongly in refusing to give 
G 
approval to the appellant's appointment, and as such the order of 
termination of service of the appellant was manifestly wrong. It, there-
fore, declared appellant's continuance in service. 
The High Court while concurring with the view of the first Appel-
late Court that the termination of services of the appellant was unlaw-
H fut, awarded one year's salary and allowances as damages since the 
572 
~--
D.K. BISWAS v. DIR. Of PUBLIC INSTRUCTION 
573 
appeUant did not belong to the category of either Government ser:vants, 
industrial workmen or employees of statutory bodies, for which alone 
reinstatement could be ordered. 
In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant 
that the Appellate Court and the High Court having found the termina-
tion of service to be wrong and illegal, he should have been granted the 
relief sought for in the suit, that is, a declaration of continuance in 
~-
service and reinstatement with full back wages and allowances. It was 
further submitted that since the college was a private institution pro-
_... -. vided and by the Go"ernment and Government had full supervisory 
/ 
control over it, it wa!i for all practical purposes a Government institu-
tion. As such, he was entitled to parity of treatment with a Government 
servant wrongly removed from service. For the respondent it was con-
'· tended that the only remedy for the appellant was to file a suit for 
damages and not to seek a declaration of continuance in service, be-
cause it would amount to seeking specific performance of a contract of 
service. 
Allowing the Appeal in part, the Court, 
HELD: The appellant was not entitled to a declaration that he 
continued to be in the service of the college and that he was entitled to 
all the benefits flowing from the declaration. [581G) 
Even though the College in question may be governed by the 
statutes of the University and the Education Code framed by the 
Government of Meghalaya and even though the college may be receiv-
ing rrnancial aid from the Government, it would not be a statutory body 
because it has not been created by any statute and its existence is not 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
dependent upon any statutory provision. [580F-G) 
F 
Vaish College v. Lakshmi Narain, (1976) 2 SCR 1006 and J. 
Tewari v. Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir & Others, (1979) 4 SCC 160, 
referred to. 
There was no violation of the provisions of any Act or any Regula-
G 
tions made thereunder in the instant case. The first respondent in 
declining to approve the appointment of the appellant had proceeded on 
the erroneous assumption that the Assam Aided College Employees 
Rules, 1960 and the Assam Aided College Mangement Rules, 1965 had 
been adopted by the State of Meghalya. No doubt such action has been 
held to be wrongful but even so it was not in contravention of any 
H 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
statutory provisions or regulations or procedura

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