LexREGINA versus ST. ALOYSIUS HIGHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
6
B
c
D
E
REGINA
v.
ST. ALOYSWS WGHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL & ANR.
March 16, 1971.
(J. M. SHELAT AND C. A. V AIDIALINGAM, JJ.)
Madras Elementary EducaJjon Act (8 of 1920), s. S6(2) (h) and Part U
Rules-If statutory Rules or administrative instructions-Purpose of Rules
-Right oJ. teacher against management oJ Elementary School-If govern-
ed by contract or Rules.
The appellant, who was working as the Headmistress in the respondent
school was reduced to the position of an Assistant Teacher. Her appeal
to the District Educational Officer under r. 13(2)(vi) of Part II of tho
rules ·published by tho State Government in the Gazette on August 29,
1939, was rejected, but on a further appeal by her to the Divisional Inspec-
tor of Schools, the management of the school was directed to restore her
to the position of Headmistress.
As the management did not do so, sho
filed • suit for the issue of a mandatory injunction to tho respondent and
for damages.
On the question whether the rules under which the appeal was filed
and the order was made wore only administrative instructions by the Gov·
eroment to its educational officers and not statutory rules which would give
rise to a remedy enforceable at law at the instance of an employee of a
school aggrieved aaalnst tho management,
HELD: (I) Section S6 of the Madras Elementary Education Act, 1920,
authorised tho Government to make rules to 'carry out all or any of tho
purposos of this Act', and under sub ... 2(h) for declaring the conditions
subject to whicb schools may be admitted to recognition or aid, and rules
were framed in 1922. The Act was amended by Amendment Act of 1939,
by which Chs. II, N, VI and s. SS wore deleted. Tho existing rules there-
fore could not be continued as they could not be regarded as rules for 'car·
rying out the purposes of the Act.' Hence they were reframod 'llld pub-
lished in the Gazette in 1939 in two parts. [13F, H; 14D].
(a) The lint part contained rules dealing with matters provided for
in the various sections. The rules in Part II could not refer to any section
because, they related to matters such as recognition and aid dealt with
in sections and Chapters which were repealed by the 1939-amelldrnent, and
hoacc, Part II rules did not set out or refer to any section of the Act. [l 4B].
G
(b) The rules in Part I were headed 'Rules framed Uildcr the Madras
H
Elementary Education Act, 1920', but the Rules in Part II were not given
any such hcadjna or title. [14F).
(c) There was no previous publication of the rules in Part II as re-
quired by s. S6(1). [14F-G].
(d) The rules in Part II could not be claimed to have been made
under s. S6(2) {b) dealing with the conditions subject to which schools
may be admitted to rocognition. or aid, because they did not satisfy tho
condition proccdcnt for auch rule·mal<iog, namely, that they could be made
amy 'to carry out all or any of the purposes of tho Act', (160-F].
KUMAltl ltEOINA v. ST. A. JI. E. SCHOOL (Shah, J.)
Therefore, the rules in Part II could not be said to be statutory rules
framed under s. 56. [16FJ
(2) But the Government had the power de hors the Act to lay down
conditions under which it could recognise and grant aid. To achieve uni·
formity and certainty in the exercise of such executive power and to avoid
discrimination, Government could frame rules which would however only
be administrative instructions to its officers. [17B-D]
The rules in the present case, relating to recognition and aid, thus
governed the terms on which Government would grant recognition and aid
and Government could enforce the rules on the management by the denial
or withdrawal of such recognition or aid, if there was a breach or non.•
compliance of the conditions laid down in the rules. But the enforcement
of such rules was a matter be~ween the Government and the managemenr,
and a third party, such as a teacher aggrieved by same order of the mana&e-
ment, could not derive from the rules any enforceable right against the
management on the grounds of a breach of or non-compliance with any
of the rules. [170-E; 19~
(3) The relation between the management of the elementary school
and the teachers employed in it would be governed by the terms of the
contract of employment and the law of master and servant in the absence
of any statute or statutory rules controlling or abrogating such a con·
tract and providing to the contrary. [16F-O]
T\te result is that the relatExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.