LAXMAN DUNDAPPA DHAMONEKAR AND ANR. versus MANAGEMENT OF VISHWA BHARATA SEVA SAMITI AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 27-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

LAXMAN DUNDAPPA DHAMONEKAR AND ANR. 
v. 
MANAGEMENT OF VISHWA BHARATA SEVA SAMITI AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2001 
[V.N. KHARE AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Kamataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 
1975/Rules 1978-Sections 3 and 15/Rule 6(2). 
Grant-in-Aid Code for Secondary Schools-Teachers-Termination of 
service-On the ground of absence without leave and non-approval of 
appointment-Plea that approval required u/r 16 of the Code-Held, tennination 
not justified-Rules do not contemplate for obtaining approval-Breach of 
non-statutory Rule 16 would not render the appointments invalid-Act or Rules 
do not provide for automatic termination of service on acc.:mnt of being absent 
without leave. 
The services of appellants who were recommended by SelP.ction 
Committee and appointed as Assistant Teachers, were terminated. They 
filed appeals before the Tribunal under Karnataka Private Educational 
Institutions, (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 which directed their 
reinstatement. Against the order of the Tribunal the Management-
respondent tiled Revision Petition before High Court contending therein 
that the services of Appellant No.1 was terminated because he remained 
absent for a particular period and because there was non-approval of his 
appointment which was on probation subject to the approval of Director of · 
Public Institutions. High Court allowed the petition. 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that there being no 
requfrement either under the Act or Karnat~ka Private Educational 
Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 for the management to 
obtain approval of the Head of the Department in respect of the 
appointments of the appellants their services could not have been 
terminated; and that the method of appointment and condition of service 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
of teachers is Government aided institutions being governed by the 
provisions of the Act and the Rules, any requirement of approval of regular 
H 
379 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
appointments of teachers under the non-statutory administrative orders 
contained in Grant-in-Aid Code would not make the appointment of 
appellants invalid; and that there being no provision under the rules on 
automatic termination of service in the event of teachers being absent, 
such termination of service of appellants is illegal. 
Respondents contended that grant~in-aid, though administrative in 
nature, provides for requirement of approval of the inspecting officer in 
the matter of appointment of teachers in the Government aided institutions 
and in the absence of such approval the appointment of the appellants was 
nullity; and that even if tbe rules did not provide for obtaining of approval 
of the Head of the Department, in case of appointment of regular teacher, 
the same is required under non-statutory Rule 16 of the Grant-in-Aid 
Code for Secondary Schools. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Karnataka Private Educational Institutions 
(Discipline & Control) Rules do not contemplate for obtaining approval of 
the Head of the Department i.e. the Director of Public Instructions 
where the appointment is -to be made on the basis of the recommendation 
of Selection Committee constituted under sub-rules (2) of rule 6 of the 
Rules. [385-E; F] 
1.2. The arpointment and conditions of service of teachers in private 
government aided institution are governed by the provisions of the Act and 
the statutory Rules. The said provisions are self contained code relating to 
the appointments of teachers in private aided institutions. The field relating 
to method of appointment of regular teachers in a government aided 
. institution is. fully covered by the provisions of the Act and the Rules and 
there is no provisions in the Act empowering the Government to supplement 
the Rules by executive instructions. It is no doubt true that if the Act had 
empowered the State Government to issue administrative instructions by 
way of supplementing the rules, the position would be different. In such a 
case.z. the Government would have power to fill up the gaps in the Rules by 
issuing administrative instructions if the Rules are silent on the subject 
provided the same is not inconsistent with the statutory rules already 
framed. In the present case, the Act does not empower the State Government 
to supplement the rules by issuing administrative instructions o

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