VIDYA DHAR PANDE versus VIDYUT GRIH SIKSHA SAMITI & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 10-10-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Case Allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
VIDYA DHAR PANDE 
v. 
VIDYUT GRIH SIKSHA SAMITI & ORS. 
OCTOBER 10, 1988 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1955: Sections 
28(2)(d) and Regulations 61, 71 and 79 framed thereunder-Regula-
tions have force of law-Termination of services of Higher Secondary 
School Principal in contravention of Regulation 79-Held illegal and 
C quashed. 
The appellant was appointed from July 3, 1968 as principal of the 
School run by the respondent society, a body registered under the M.P. 
Non-trading Corporation Act, 1962. On June 23, 1971 the appellant's 
services were terminated with immediate effect by giving one month's 
II> salary in lieu of notice. The appellant made representation to the Divi-
sional Superintendent of Education who directed the Society-to rescind 
the order of termination because, according to him, the termination of 
the appellant was wrongful being in breach of Regulation 79 of the 
Regulations framed by the Board of Secondary Education under Sec-
E lion _28(2)(d) of Madhya Pradesh MadhyamikShiksha Adhiniyam, 1955. 
The appellant however was not re-instated by the society. 
The appellant therefore filed a petition in the High Court, which 
was dismissed. The High Court held that (1) the said Regulations had no 
statutory force and therefore the violation in this case of the procedure 
prescribed in Regulations 71 and 79 would not render the order of 
F termination null and void; (2) the appellant's remedy was only by an 
action for damages for breach of master and servant contract; and (3) 
the school being run by a private body, no writ of mandamus could be 
issued. 
Allowing the appeal, it was, 
HELD: (1) Section 28(2)(d) of the Act confers power on the 
Board to make Regulations regarding the conditions of recognition of 
the Institutions as well as for framing of "School Code" to ensure a 
minimum standard of efficient and uniform management of such 
11 schools. l447B.C) 
442 
V.D. PANDE v. SIKSHA SAMITI 
443 
(2) As bas been held by this Court in Sukhdev Singh's case, there 
A 
is no substantial difference between a·rule and a regulation inasmuch as 
both are subordinate legislation under powers conferred by the statute. 
There is, therefore, no esc!lpe from the conclusion that the regulations, 
in the present case, have force of law. [ 449B I 
(3) As .observed in Sukhdev Singh's case, the doctrine of ultra 
B 
vires as applied to statutes, rules and orders should equally apply to the 
regulations and any other subordinate legislation. [450G I 
(4) The order of termination of the appellant from the post of 
Principal of the Higher Secondary School in breach of Regulation 79 is 
\ 
illegal and as such the same is liable to be quashed as the Regulations 
C 
have got statutory force. The appellant is liable to be re-instated in the 
service as Principal of the said ~chool. [454A-B] 
. 
( 5) The Higher Secondary School in question though run by a 
private trust receives 100% grant from the Government and as such it is 
amenable to the writ jurisdiction for violation of the provisions of the 
said Regulations in passing the order of termination of service of the 
appellant. [454B-C] 
Dr. Ram Pal Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan, [1970] l SCC 75; 
" 
Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai, [1971] 2 SCC 192; Sukh-
dev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr., 
(1975] 3 SCR 619; Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh v. A.L. Pandi and 
Anr., (1965] 2 SCR 713; Manmohan Singh Jaitla v. Commissioner, 
U. T, of Chandigarh & Ors., (1984] Supp. S.C.C. 540; and Indra Pal 
v. Managing Committee,, Model Inter College Thora; [1984] 3 SCC 
384, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1697 
of 1973. 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.1972 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 358 of 1971. 
D 
E 
F 
M. Narayan, Mr. B. Shetya and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant. 
G 
S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra, Baldev Krishan Satija and T.C. 
Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
RAY, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and 
order dated 22nd January, 1972 rendered by the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 358 of 1971 
dismissing the.writ petition holding that the Regulations framed by the 
Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh under Section 
28(2)(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.