MANMOHAN SINGH JAITLA, ETC. ETC. versus THE COMMISSIONER. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 19-12-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
-' 
• 
• 
MANMOHAN SINGH JAITLA, ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER. UNION TERRITORY 
CHANDIGARH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
December 19, 1984 
(D.A. DESAI AND V. KHALID, JJ.) 
479 
Punjab Aided Schools (Stc11rily 
of Service) 
Act, 1969-S. 3-
Holding of inquiry before 
di~missing an employee of an aided school j1 manda-
tory-S. 3 is beneficial provision-On appointment teacher asked to enter into 
agreement with school management-Agreement in derogation of mandatory 
provision-Managing Committee terminated service of teacher without holding 
inquiry by Invoking conditions of agreement-Whether amounts to colourable 
exercise of power-~,Yhether o··der of termination of service bad aN.f ab lnitio 
•old. 
Constitution of India Art. 227-Scope of writ jurisdlctlon-Expres.~lon 
'Tribunal' in Art. 227 
cotnprehend~ Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner 
which are statutory 
quasi~judicfal authoritlcr under the Punjab Aided Schools. 
(Security of Ser>.Jice) Act, 1969-Deputy Commissioner and Commis3/oner are 
amenable to the writ jurlsdiction. 
Interpretation-Any agreement not in consonance with the statutory 
provisions beneficial to a class in ni!ed of protection eannot be given effect to if 
it stands in derogation of the mandatory provisions of the .<tatut•. 
Section 3 of the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act, 19d9 
('1969 > 
.. ct' for short) provides that no employee shall be dismissed or 
removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry to be held in the manner 
prescribed therein. 
Sub-sec. (2) provide~ that no order of dismissal or 
removal or reduction in rank of an employee shall take effect uolos1 it has 
been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner who may refuse to do so. if in 
bis opinion, the provisions or sub-sec. ( 1) have not been complied with. 
Sub-sec. (S) permits an aggrieved person to prer~r an appeal against any 
decision or order of the Deputy Commissioner under the section to the Com-
mi11ion1r. 
The appellant in the civil appeal wa:11 appointed as Headmaster of an 
aided school which received 9.5 percent of its expenses as grant from the 
Government. As required by the conditions of his appointment, the appellant 
catered into an agreement with the management of the school. 
The 
appollant'a appointment was confirmed by the concerned authority. 
Tho 
appellant was confirmed in his post aa the Headmaster 
The appellant was 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
',' 
!~ 
~ 
:: 
!; 
H 
i 
~. 
480 
SUPREHB COURT RBPORTS 
[1985] 2 s.c.a. 
awarded a certificate of honour by the Chandigarh administration in token 
of appreciation of the outstanding performance of the appellant. 
After the 
term of the Managing Committee which appointed tho appellant expired 
and the new Managing Committee took over, the services of the appellant 
were terminated invoking the c·onditions of the agreement entered into by the 
appellant. 
The appellant's appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and the 
Commissioner wero turned down. 
The appellant's writ petition was dis. 
missed by the High Court In //mine. 
The H:gh Court observed that as tho 
school cannot be said to be 'other authority• under Art. 12 of the Constitu· 
tion, it was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Hence 
this appeal by Special Leave. 
The petitioner in the writ petition was appointed as a Drawing 
Teacher in' t 976. 
As required by the conditions of his appointment the 
petitioner entered into an agreement with the management. 
In 1983 the 
petitioner's services were terminated invoking the conditions of the agree .. 
meat. 
The petitioner 
approached the Deputy 
Commissioner and the 
Commissioner withoiit success. 
Thereupon he filed the present writ petition 
under Art. 32 or the Constitution. 
Allowing both tho appeal and the writ petition, 
HELD : Any agreement not in consonance with the statutor1 provi .. 
sions beneficial to a .class in need of protection cannot be given effect to if 
it stands in derogatioo of the mandatory provisions of the statate. Section 
3 or tho 1969 Act makes it obligatory to bold a disciplinary inquiry before 
an employee of an aided school can be either dismissed remo'fcd or reduced 
in rank. 
In order to circumvent this mandatory provision .. a resort to the 
provisions of the agreement in the context of the fact that an inquiry was 
commenced and given up clearly indicates the trae nature of the order as 
well as colourable exercise of power. 
And this was done by the new 
Managina Committee whic

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