KAYASTHA PATHSHALA, ALLAHABAD AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus RAJENDRA PRASAD AND ANR.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 08-12-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KAYASTHA PATHSHALA, ALLAHABAD AND 
""
ANR. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
RAJENDRA PRASAD AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 8, 1989 
B 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETIY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
Labour & Services: Educational institution registered under the 
, ..
Societies Registration Act-Reinstatement of dismissed official by 
Court-Consideration to be taken into account-Contract for personal 
c 
service-Whether enforceable. 
The respondent was appointed on 15.7.1962 as a Chemistry 
lecturer iu Kulohaskar Ashram Agriculture Intermediate College run 
by the appellant society. By a communication dated 20.6.1963, he was 
;-
informed by the management that his services were no longer required 
D 
after 15. 7 .1963. He filed a civil suit for permanent injnnction restrain-
""
ing the management from proceeding with the proposed action. But the 
management having withdrawn the letter, he withdrew the suit as 
having become infructuous. However on 28.8.1964, the respondent was 
placed under suspension whereupon he again filed a civil suit for a 
declaration that the order of suspension was illegal. The trial court 
E 
dismissed the suit but the first appellate court allowed the appeal and 
"'l.---
decreed the suit as prayed for. On appeal the High Court affirmed that 
....
decision, on 9.4.69. During the pendency of the appeal before the High 
Court, the management-appellant had passed a fresh order suspending 
the respondent pending enquiry on certain allegations. The respondent 
again filed a civil suit to challenge the competency of the m9naging 
F 
committee to take action against him. In the said suit he also pleaded 
that the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools having not 
been taken, the order placing him nnder suspension was bad. The 
Munsiff Court accepted the snit and declared the suspension order as 
,,. 
illegal and void. The first appellate court reversed that order and the 
respondent preferred second appeal to the High Court. 
G 
During the pendency of the respondent's second appeal, U.P. 
Secondary Educational Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 came into force 
from 18.8. 76 which inter alia provided that prior approval of the 
District Inspector of School was necessary before any action could be 
taken against teaching staff of a college. The respondent sought to 
H 
amend the pleadings of second appeal in consonance with the Act but 
' 
450 
KAYASTHA PATHSHALA v. R. PRASAD 
451 
the High Court declined but he succeeded on this question before this 
Court. 
1 
Contemporaneously with the litigation set out above, the respon-
dent filed a snit for recovery of arrears of salary, past pendente lite and 
future. It was claimed for the period between 21.2.1964 and 20.2.1967. 
The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 7812/92 ;>. being the arrears of 
salary for the period of three years. The management appealed to the 
District Court and the respondent tiled cross-objection. As stated 
earlier, the second appeal preferred by the respondent was pending in 
the High Court. Hence the parties moved the High Court for withdraw-
ing the appeal pending before the District Court for being disposed of 
alongwith the second appeal No. 2038/1970, which request was accep-
ted and the said appeal came to be registered as First Appeal No. 460 of 
1982. The High Court disposed of both the appeals by a common judg-
ment whereby the second appeal was dismissed and the fmding as to the 
validity of the suspension order was confirmed. However the First 
Appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was reversed and a 
suit for arrears of salary tiled by the respondent was dismissed. The 
respondent appealed to this Court and his appeal was allowed and his 
claim to salary between 20.2.1964 to 15.1.1966 was settled at Rs.10,000 
and the court further held that the order of suspension ceased to be 
operative w.e.f. 17.10.1975. 
Thereafter the respondent on May 18, 1986 moved the High Court 
under Article 227 of the Constitution for a writ of Mandamus against 
the State of U.P. and the management of the College for his reinstate-
ment in service and for payment of entire arrears of salary. The High 
Court accepted the writ petition and granted him the relief asked for. 
Hence these appeals by the Management of the school and the State of 
U.P. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: Indeed, the reinstatement would be an unwise move from 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
any point of view. In educational institutions, the Court cannot focus 
only on the individual. The Cour

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