FRANCIS JOHN versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 252 · Decided: 23-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
FRANCIS JOHN 
v. 
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 23, 1989 
B 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, CJ., K.N. SINGH AND 
c 
D 
E 
F 
N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) 
Goa, Damam and Diu Grant-in-aid Code: Rule 74.2-Termina-
tion of services of permanent teacher-Dispute Settlement Committee 
-Jurisdiction to enquire. 
Constitution of India: Article 226--Private School recelVlng 
government aid under Grant-in-aid Code-Termination of services of a 
reacher-Orders of Dispute Settlement Committee and Director of 
Education-Amenable io High Court's Writ jurisdiction. 
Disciplinary proceedings were started against the appellant who 
was a headmaster in a private school in accordance with the Role 74.2 
of the Grant-in-aid Code since the school was a recipient of grant as per 
the code. The Director of Education approved the findings of the Dis-
pute Settlement Committee and permitted the termination of the appel-
lant hy the Principal of the School. The said order of termination was 
challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Bombay, Panaji 
Bench, in a Writ Petition. The petition was dismissed by the Hij:h Court 
upholding the preliminary objection that the petition was not maintain-
able under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the manage-
me9t' of the School which was a private body. Aggrieved by the decision 
of the High Court the appellant fded this appeal by special leave. 
According to the relevant rule of the Grant-in-aid Code the 
management could not have terminated the services of the appellant 
without the communication received by ii from the Director of Educa-
tion who was a public functionary and was discharging a governmental 
function as an authority constituted for the said purpose by the govern-
G 
ment. Obviously in such circumstances ii cannot be said that the deci-
sion is just that of a private management governed by private law. The 
High Court erred in not properly following the ratio of the decision of 
this Court in Tika Ram's case the facts of which were not substantially 
different from the facts of the present case. This Court while setting 
aside the judgment of the High Court and remanding the case to the 
H 
High Court to hear the Writ Petition on merits, 
252 
F. JOHN v. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 253 
HELD: Any private school which receives aid from the govern-
ment under the Grant-in-aid Code, which is promulgated not merely 
for the benefit of the management but also for the benefit of the 
employees in the school for whose salary and allowances the govern-
ment was contributing from public funds under the Grant-in-aid Code 
ca&not escape from the consequences flowing from the breach of the 
Code and particularly where the Director of Education who is an 
instrumentality of the State is participating in the decision making 
process. [260F-G] 
The High Court was wrong in upholding that the orders of the 
Director of Education and of the Dispute Settlement Committee were 
not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of 
the Constitution oflndia. [260G] 
Tika Ram v. Mundikota Shikshan Prasarak Manda/ & Ors., 
[1985] I SCR 339, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
O 
3586 of 1988. 
From the Judgments and Orders dated 18.8.1987 & 9.11.1987 of 
the Goa High Court in W.P. No. 92/1986 & Misc. Civil Application 
No. 334 of 1987. 
Dr. R.S. Kulkarni, S.K. Mehta, Aman Vachher and Atul Nanda 
for the Appellant. 
K.N. Bhat and Mukul Mudgal for the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
VENKATARAMIAH, CJ. The appellant was appointed as a 
Headmaster of a school which was being run by the Calangute Don 
Bosco Educational & Welfare Foundation in 1974 in the State of Goa 
(which was at the relevant time a Union Territory). Disciplinary pro-
ceedings were started against him in accordance with the Grant-in-aid 
G 
Code which was in force at that time, since the school was a recipient 
of the grant as per the Code. The findings of the Dispute Settlement 
Committee were approved by the director of Education of the Govern-
ment of Goa by his Order dated July 12, 1984 who permitted the 
termination of the services of the appellant. The Principal of the Don 
Bosco High School, therefore, terminated the services of the appellant 
H 
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
as Headmaster by his letter dated July 26, 1984 and the said order of 
A termination was challenged by the appellant before the

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