DR. RAMJI DWIVEDI versus STATE OF U. P. & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 26-04-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

l -
OR. RAMJI DWIVEDI 
v. 
STATE OF U, P. & OTHERS 
April 26, 1983 
[D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
Intermediate Education Act, 1921-Section 9(4) and 16E(IO)-Scope of 
Selection of Principal of non-Government aided college made on April 12, 1981-
By order dated April 7, 1981 State Government stopped all fresh sele£"1ions and 
appOiutments-Effect ofGovernn1ents order. 
The Committee of Management of a non-Government aided school, by 
its resolution dated April 19, 1981 appointed the appellant as Principal of the 
college run by it. The order was communicated to the appellant on April 27 
1981 and he assumed charge on May 1, 1981. In the meanwhile on April 7, 
1981 the Secretary to the Government of U. P. Education Department commu-
nicated by radiogram to the various authorities the order of the Gove_rnment 
stopping all fresh selections and appointments of principals in all non·Govern· 
ment~aided secondary schools. A copy of it was sent to the college by the 
District Inspector of Schools on May 1, 1981. 
Though the appellant continued to function as Principal of the college 
the Committee of Management stopped payment of his salary on the ground 
that his appointment was not valid after the issue of the Government order 
dated April 7, 1981. 
The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution 
praying for a writ of mandamus directing the Committees of Management of 
the College not to interfere with the discharge of his duties as Principal and 
also to pay him his salary. The High Court, dismissing his petition, held that 
the appellant's appointment as Principal of the college was invalid in that the 
Committee of Management had no power to set up the Selection Committee 
nor had the Selection Committee the power to make any appointment. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
on the date of his appointment as Principal the COmmittee of Management 
had the power to make the appointment notwithstanding the fact that the 
Government had withdrawn that power. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
. 
. HELD : . 'fhe order of the Government became effective the moment it 
was issued. The effect of that order was that the Selection Committe had no 
right to select the appellant nor did the Committee of Manaaement have any 
power to make the appointment. [979 A·B] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(198312 s.c.R. 
The Boa~d constituted under the Act had the power to make regulations 
and this power could be exercised only with the previous sanction ·or the State 
Government. Section 9(4) specifically confers power on the State Goverflment 
without making any reference to the :Board to make, modify or resci~d any 
regulation. This power comprehended the power to stop aU appointments for 
the time being. Exercising power under this section the State Government 
issued orders stopping all fresh selections and appointments of Principals in all 
non-Governn1ent aided schools. The effect of the order was to rescind the 
regulation conferring power on the Committee of Management to make 
appointments of Principals. [978 B-G] 
There was no 1nerit in the submission that the letter dated May 1. 1981 
had not been received by the Management. [979 D] 
If the order was valid and power to make the appointment was with-
drawn or suspended, it would not be open to the Selection Committee tO select 
the appellant and issue the order of appointment to him. The appointment in 
that event would be by a body nOt authorised to make it and so it was in-
effective though not invalid. [979 E-F] 
Section 16E (10) which provides that where the .competent authority was 
satisfied that a person had been appointed as Principal in contravention of the 
provision's of the Act, it 1nay cancel such appointment after affording him an 
opportunity of being heard .has n(J appJication to the present case·bc::cause 
power of appointment conferred by the regulation on the Committee of 
Management was withdrawn or suspended and therefore the .Committee had no 
power to make the appointment. [980 E-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1340 of 
1982. 
Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and Order dated 
the I st March, 1982 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscella-
neous Petition No. 6933 of 1981. 
G.L. Sanghi, R.D. Upadhaya, V.K. Pandita and S. Srinivasan 
for the Appellants. 
R. K. Garg and, S. N. Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the 

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