R. SULOCHANA DEVI versus D.M. SUJATHA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 04-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

-;. 
R. SULOCHANA DEVI 
A 
v. 
D.M. SUJA THA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 4, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.J 
B 
A, 
Service Law 
Selection-Principal of educational institutions managed by minorities- c 
Discretionary power of choice of management ought not to be interfered with. 
Seniority-Post of Principal in College-Dispute between lecturers-'A' 
appointed over claim of 'B' on opinion of Regional Joint Director of Collegiate 
Education (RJD) based on fact that latter had objections from audit which 
.. 
also indicated her appointment from subsequent years-However, on D 
representation of 'B', RJD giving opinion that she was deemed to be lecturer 
with effect from an earlier year,-On retirement of 'A' and, on representation 
of 'C', RJD giving opinion that as 'B' did not act on its opinion that she was 
deemed to be lecturer with effect from an earlier year, she had no claim to 
seniority-However, a government order declared 'B' to be senior to 'C'-
Correctness of-Held: 'B' had the seniority as although she received salary of E 
lecturer and no recoveries were made from her on ground of having worked 
in a lower post, whereas name of 'C' in seniority list was at a lower place and 
she also had a break in her service-Proceedings of RJD whereby 'A' was 
appointed to post of lecturer was not a quasi judicial order passed in exercise 
of statutory power; it was only an opinion and its subsequent reconsideration F 
did not amount to review-This opinion was also non-est in law as no notice 
was given to 'B' before passing it-However, no notice was required to be 
given by RJD to 'C' before giving its opinion that 'B' was deemed to be 
lecturer with effect from an earlier year as she was not party to dispute 
between 'A' and 'B'-Also, no notice was required to be given by government 
to 'C' as its order did not change seniority of anyone. 
G 
Order-Made in violation of natural justice-Held that it is void and 
need not be challenged in court of law. 
Appellant joined as Demonstrator in the Department of Chemistry 
., 
I 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A in the respondent College on 1.8.1968. She was promoted as Lecturer on 
~, 
1.8.1969 and was appointed Vice-Principal with effect from 12.1.2000. 
Obtaining the opinion of Regional Joint Director (RJD) of Collegiate 
education that one A, appointed as lecturer on 28 6.1969, was senior to 
her, respondent appointed him as pri~cipal. This opinion was given on the 
B basis that in audit report, appellant's promotion was neither recorded nor 
approved by the Department of Higher Education. Its basis was also that 
she was only admitted as Junior Lecturer/Demonstrator in the Audit 
report for the year 1973-1976 and that she was allowed only one in~rement 
treating her as Demonstrator. However, subsequently, when appellant also 
approached RJD, he gave a opinion that she was deemed to be lecturer 
c w.e.f. 1.8.1969. 
Respondent No. 1 represented to RJD that she was ignored for post 
of Principal despite being senior to appellant. RJD ordered that as 
appellant did not act on his opinion that she was deemed to be lecturer 
D 
w.e.f. 1.8.1969, she had no claim to seniority for post of principal after 
retirement of A. Aggrieved by this, appellant approached the Government, 
which declared her as s.enior to respondent no. 1. Against this decision, 
writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 was dismissed by Single judge of 
High Court, but writ appeal against same was allowed by Division Bench. 
.. 
Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Respondent no. 1 contended that appellant was not appointed as 
Associate-Principal; that RJD being a quasi judicial authority had no 
power to review its own order; while issuing the modified order she was 
deemed to be lecturer w.e.f. 1.8.1969, the RJD has not issued any notice 
to her; and that due to audit objection, the appellant was not paid the 
F salary of Lecturer. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD 1.1. The first respondent is not entitled to hold the post of 
Principal. The appellant admittedly being senior to the first respondent 
G is entitled to hold the post of Principal of the College in question till her 
date of retirement. (19-F) 
1.2. The Division Bench ought not to have interfered with the 
discretionary power that is vested with the Management to chose the 
principal of its choice. It is settled that Courts shall be loathe in interfering 
H with the choice of the Management in the selection of the Pr

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