TIKA RAM versus MUNDIKOTA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 10-08-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
' 
TIKA RAM 
v. 
MUNDJKOTA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL 
&ORS. 
August IO, 1984 
[E S. VENK/\TARAMIAH AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.] 
339 
Con!Jfitution of India-Article 226-Writ Petition against a privaie body 
on the. bas,.s of non-statutory rules-Whe1her maintainable. 
School Code (Maharashtra State)-Nature of-Non-statttory-Nature of 
proceedings under School Code-Quasi-judicial-Director and Deputy Director 
of Education have no power to review their decisions. 
The appellant was working as Headmaster of a school run by RespOn~ 
dent No. 1, which was a private body. 
After an eaquiry, tho management 
of th' school reverted the appellant to the post of Assistant Teacher. Feeling 
aggrieved, the appeallant appealed to the Deputy Director of EducatioO. 
The Deputy Director, having fou~d that the enquiry bad beeo vitiated on 
account of violation of principles of natural justice, set -aside the ordet of 
the management reverting the appellant and remanded the .. case to tho 
management for a fresh decision. 
The Deputy Director dismissed the 
managemenes application for rc•considering bis decision· on the ground that 
no such review petition could be filed before him. The management appea~ ."~ 
against this order of the Deputy Director. 
The Director-of Eduration dis··· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
missed the appeal. 
The management filed a petition before the Director to 
F 
reconsider the case. 
This tim·e the Director allowed the. petition and set 
aside the order of the Deputy Director remanding the case. 
Tho appellant 
filed a writ petition before the High Court on the ground that the Director 
had no jurisdiction to review his earlil!r order. 
The High Court dismissed 
the writ petition holding that the teachers working in private schools could 
not enforce their right under Clause 77 and other connected clauses of the 
School Code which \Vere not str.tutory rules. 
Hence this appeal by special 
leave. 
Allowing the appeal, 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
I 
D 
E 
F 
G 
340 ' 
. 
, ·. ( 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985) I s.c.il . 
HBLD : The order of the Director passed on the review petition is set 
aside and that of the Deputy Director is restored. [342H) 
The Court is a\vare of some of the decisions in which it is observed 
that on teacher could enforce a right under the School Code which is 000• 
statutory in character against the manrigement. 
But in the instant case, 
since the appellant was ~ot seeking any relief directly against the manage. 
merit, a private. body, but against the order passed in a quasi-judicial proceed-
ing by the 'oirectof; an officer of Government who is always amenable to 
the .iurisdicti0n of the Court, though in a case arising under the School Code 
and since the Director had assumed a jurisdiction to review his own orders 
not conferred on him, the appellant was entitled to maintain the petition 
under Article 226 of the Constitution. [342E-F] 
On merits it is not disputed that, r:i~1tber the Deputy Director nor the 
Director of Educ:Hion had th~ power to re.view the order passed by him 
enrlier. 
The Director had affirmed the order of the Deputy Director by his 
earlier order. 
The orUer passed by the Deputy Director remanding the case 
to the, management for holding a fresh enquiry thus became final. 
The 
Director had no power to review his earlier order. [342G.H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3189 
of 1984. 
t 
Appeal 
by Special leave from the Judgment and Order 
dated the l St·h Day of December, J 982 of the Bombay High Court 
in· Special Civil Appln. 637 of 1977 
.I 
'Dr. N. M. Ghatate for the Appcll&nt. 
D. M. Nargo/kar for the Respondent. 
The J~dgment of the Court was delivered by 
.. 
VENKAri>R.AMIAH J. Special Leave granted. 
In the year 1975 the appellant was working as the Head 
Master of a High School which was being mn by the Mundikota 
Sbikshan Prasarak Manda!, respondent No. 1, which was a private 
body. On account of certain earlier events which need not be set 
out here the management instituted a disciplinary enquiry against 
... 
' 
TIKARAM v. M, s. P. MANDAL (Venkatarnmiah, J.) 
3tl 
the appellant and on July 7,1975, the appellant was informed by 
the management that it had imposed on the appellant the .punish-
ment of reversion to the post of Assistant Teacher wh;ch according 
to the management was the substantive post held by him. Aggrieved 
by the above order of reversion, the appellant filed an . appeal 
before the Deputy Director of Education, N,1gpur Division

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