LexSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ETC. versus S. K. KRISHNAMURTBI, ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
104
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ETC.
v.
S. K. KRISHNAMURTBI, ETC. ETC.
January 18, 1972
(K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D. G. PALBKAR, JJ.)
Madras EducaUonal Rules and Text-Book Committu Rules-Nature
of-Rights of Publishers .of approve!{ text-books-Government, if .stop-
ped from chan11in11 text books.
Jn furtherance of the policy of the appellant.State to nationalise text-
books for schools, directions were issued to District Collectors and Local
Board authorities that they should intimate publishers of the text-boob
which were prescribed for the year 1969-70, that, after .the end of the
school year they will no longer be prescribed. The publishers challenged
the validity of the directions. The . High Court allowed the petitions on
the ground ·that though the. Madras Educational Rules and the Tex1>-Book
Committee Rules-under which lists of approved text-books are published
in the Gautte-are administrative instructions and are not framed for
the benefit of publishers, nonetheless, under those rules, a publisher of
text-books could proceed on the basis that be has an assurance that
once his books had been selected and prescribed as text-books, they will
continue to be prescribed .for 3 year8.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : (!) The Ru)es are in the nature of Departmental Instructions
and do not confer any right on the publishers, nor are they designed to
safeguard the interest of publishers. They are conceived in public
interest and the Government is at liberty to change the text-
books and delete from and add to the list of approved text-books or even
prescribe books which are not in the list. Therefore, the impugned direc-
tions have been issued by the Government in exercise of the powers
reserved to it by the Rules themselves, !IOS C.E, F-01
(2) There is no warrant for concluding that the Rules held out any
kirid of representation or assurance to the publishers, or that the Rules
envisaged their participation in the scheme and as such the Government
was estopped fro01 resiling from the representation that the period of
3 vears will not be altered. f107 D-Fl
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
The selection of text ))oaks by the Text-Book Committee does not
involve any assurance to the publishers that their text-books will be pres-
cribed. The selection only implied that the books have been approved. ll
any of the schools prescnbed any of the appro,-ed text-books there is no
assurance as to the number Of books that may be required. The period
during whicih a text book once prescribed is to continue, is an injunction
to the Managers of schools tel avoid hardship to failed candidates or to
poor students intending to buy second hand books.
It is not an aSStbnce
to the publishers, because, the Managers can change the text-books within
the specffied period with the approval of the prescribed authority. [108 E-H:
109 A-CJ
H
Stale of Assam v, Ajit Kumar Sharma & Ors., U96S] 1 S.C.R., 890,
followed.
TAMlL NADU v. KRISHNAMURTHI (Jagallfr!Ohan Reddy, I.) 105
A
Union of l1tdia v. Mjs. Indo-Afglian Agencies Ltd., Ll968] 2 S.C.R.
B
c
366, Sank,;;ranarayanan, etc. v. State of Kera/a, [1971] 2 S.C.R. 361 and
M/s. Narinderchand Hemraj & Ors. v. LD. Gbvernor, Union
Tern'tory
Himadwl Pradesh & Ors., C.A. No. 1313/70 dt. 5-10-71, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 557 to 575 of
1971.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 3, 1970
of the Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. '768, 1465 and
1483 of 1970.
S. Govind Swaminadhan, Advocate-General for the State of
Tamil Nadu, S. Mohan and A. V. Rangam, for the appellants (in
all the appeals) .
K. K. Venugopal and K. R. Nanibiar, for the respondents (in
(C.A.s No. 557 to 559 and 561to575 of 1971).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. Jaganmoban Reddy, J.
22 Writ Petitions were filed in the
0
High Court of Madras by publishers of text-books for Govern-
ment Schools, Dist!. Board and Municipal Council Schools chal-
lenging the directions of the Deputy Secretary to Government,
Education Department, contained in his D.O. letter No. 454582/
E5/69. Education, dated 12th August 1969, addressed to District
Collectors and Local Board authorities that they should intimate
to the publishers of the books which are prescribed for the year
E
1969-70 that after the end of the School year they will no longer
be prescribed. A Division Bench of the High Court .allowed the
Writ Petitions. FromExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.