STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER versus AJIT KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 890 · Decided: 27-10-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER 
v. 
AJIT KUMAR SHARMA AA'D OTHERS 
Or;tober 27, 1964 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHt:BAR DAYAL AND 
JI/ R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226-Administrativt i"'tructions by 
State to private college-Carried out by Goi'rrning Body--Conditioru of 
tervice of 1eacher1 affected-Right of teacher to maintain writ petition.. 
The respondent was a teacher in a private college affiliated to the Gauhati 
University in Assam. 
The colJege was receiving grants-in-aid from the 
State on certain conditions set out in the form of Rules. One of the rules, 
r. 7, provided that if a teacher stood for election to the Legislature, he 
llhould be on compulsory leave without pay from the date of filing of nomi-
nation till the cod of the next academic session or, till the termination of 
the term of the office to which he may be elected. The respondent applied 
for leave for three months and contested for a scat in Parliament but was 
defeated. 
So, he applied for permission to rejoin. and the Governing 
Body granted him the permission. The Director of Public Instruction, how-
ever, pointed out that such permission was in contra,enlion of the afore-
said rule, and therefore, the Governing Rody informed the respondent 
that he had been granted compulsory leave without pay till the end of the 
academic session. 
The respondent thereupon filed a petition in the High 
Coun for the issue of a wrir of 1nandan1us or other appropriate direction 
on the grounds that: (i) the rule had no legal force. (ii) the rule did 
not bind the Governing Body or the respondent and (iii) the order of the 
Governing Body putting him on compulsor1 leave was incf{l:ctive. 
He 
also prayed that the State should be d1Tected not tu withhold the grant-in-
aid to the college if the Governing Body did not impose ..:orupulsory leave 
on him. The Governing Body was also made a party to the petition. The 
High Court held that the rules had no statutory force. and issued a direction 
to the Director, as a public authority, to refrain from giving effect to 
such rules. The High Court also issued a similar direction to the Governin& 
Body, on the ground that it had not applied its independent mind to 
the question of respondent's leave. 
The State appealed to the Supremo 
Court, but did not dispute that the Rules were only administrative instruc-
tions. 
HELD : The order of the High Court issuing a writ to the State throu&JI 
its Director should be set aside. [899 BJ 
The rules being mere administrative instructions have not the force of 
law as statutory rules. 
They therefore confer no right on the teache" of 
private colleges which would entitle them to maintain a writ petition under 
Art. 226, for the enforcement or non-enforcement of any provision of thft 
rules. 
They being mere administrative instructions, are matters between 
private colleges and the Government in the matter of grants-in-aid to such 
colleges, and no teacher of any college has any right under the rules to ask 
either for their enforcement or non-enforcement. It is open to the Go,·em-
ing Body not to carry oul any such instructions and it 'o'1ill then be open 
to the State to consider what grant to make. 
But if the Governing Body 
chooses to carry out the instructions it could not be said that the instruc-
tion was carried out under any threat; and, it is not open to a teacher 
A 
• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
STATE v. AJIT KUMAR (Wanchoo 1.) 
891 
A 
to insist that the Governing Body should not carry out the instruction. (897 
B-H) 
B 
Messrs Raman and Raman v. The State of Madras, [1959) Supp. 2. S.C.R. 
227, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISD!CT!ON: Civil Appeal No. 1062 of 
1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
September 25, 1962, of the Assam High Court in Civil Rule 
No. 221 of 1962. 
G. S. Pathak and Naunit Lal, for the appellants. 
C 
M. K. Ramamurthy, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo J. 
This is an appeal by special leave against the 
judgment of the Assam High Court. 
Shri Ajit Kumar Sharma 
(hereinafter referred to as the respondent) is a teacher in the 
D 
Handique Girls College (hereinafter referred to as the College) at 
Gauhati. 
He filed a writ petition in the High Court on the follow-
ing averments. This is a private college teaching up to B.A. 
standard and affiliated to the Gauhati University established under 
the Gauhati University Act, No.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.