Holding

The Director of Education lacks jurisdiction to review his own earlier order, and a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against such an order.

Summary

The appellant, a headmaster of a private school, was reverted to assistant teacher by the school management after a disciplinary enquiry. He appealed to the Deputy Director of Education, who set aside the management’s order on grounds of violation of natural justice and remanded the case for a fresh enquiry. The management sought review of the Deputy Director’s order, first unsuccessfully before him, then the Director of Education set aside the Deputy Director’s order in a review proceeding, which the appellant challenged by a writ petition under Article 226. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ, holding that teachers in private schools could not enforce rights under the non‑statutory Maharashtra School Code. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was maintainable because it was directed against a quasi‑judicial order of a government officer, not against the private management, and the Director had no jurisdiction to review his own earlier order. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Director’s review order of 26 November 1976 and restored the Deputy Director’s remand order of 3 October 1975, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an order passed by the Director of Education in a review proceeding under the Maharashtra School Code, which is non‑statutory.
Whether the Director of Education has jurisdiction to review his own earlier order.
Whether teachers in private schools can enforce rights under the non‑statutory School Code against the management.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra State School Code

Subjects

Article 226Writ petitionQuasi‑judicial proceedingReview jurisdictionSchool CodePrivate school teachersNatural justice

Judgment

339

A
TIKA RAM

v.
MUNDJKOTA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL
&ORS. B

August IO, 1984

[E S. VENK/\TARAMIAH AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.]

Con!Jfitution of India-Article 226-Writ Petition against a privaie body
on the. bas,.s of non-statutory rules-Whe1her maintainable.
c
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.
D
.... 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 E
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···
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 G
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, H
340., ·. '
( SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985) I s.c.il.
A
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 •
B 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
c not conferred on him, the appellant was entitled to maintain the petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution. [342E-F]

I
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
D
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]

E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
of 1984.
No. 3189
...
t

Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order
dated the l St·h Day of December, J982 of the Bombay High Court
in· Special Civil Appln. 637 of 1977
F .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
..
G 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 A
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, Nagpur
contending that the enquiry had been vitiated on account of. B
violation of principles of natural justice and that he had never held
the post of an Assistant Teacher to which he had been reverted.
After hearing both the parties the Deputy Director of Education
passed an order dated October 3, 1975 setting aside the decision df
the management and remanding the case to the management for
fresh decision on the ground th1t the enquiry had been vithted on c
account of violation of principles of natural justice. Instead of
filing an appeal against that order, the management filed a review
petition before tho Deputy Director hi1melf on October 17, 1975,
That was rejected by the Deputy Directol' by his order dated Novem-
ber 11, 1975 on the ground that no such review petition could be
filed before him. Against this order the management filed an D
appeal before the Director of Education and that was dismissed on
May 12, 1976 affirming,the order of remand passed by the Deputy
Director, The management again filed a petition before the Direc-
ctor of Education to reconsider the case, This petition for review
was allowed by the Director on November 26, l976 and the order
passed by the Deputy Director on October 3, l975 remaridini the
E
case to the management for a fresh decision was set-aside. Aggrieved
by the said order dated November 26, 1976, the appellanf filed a
writ petition before the High Court of Bombay on the principal
ground that the Director had no jurisdiction to review his earlier
order of May 12, 1976 by which he had dismissed the appeal against
F
the order of the Deputy Director. The High Court dismissed the
above writ petition holding that the appellant could not file a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order
passed by the Director on the grour.d that the teachers working in
private schools could not enforce their right under clause 77 and
connected clauses of the School Code which were not statutory ·G
rules. This appeal is filed against the above order of the High
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

It is not disputed that the Deputy Director and the] Director
are officers of Government and the nature of functions discharged
by them while hearing appeals against orders made in discip\inary

""
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [J98S] i s.c.ii.

porceedings is quasi-judicial in character. It is also not disputed
that neither of them has been authorised by the School Code to
review their own decisions and that in the absence of such power,
an order made on review in such quasi-judicial proceeding would be
ineffective. In the writ petition the appellant was not seeking any
I B relief directly against the management on the basis of the clauses
in the School Code. If the management does not obey the order
passed by the Deputy Director or the Director, it is open to the
State Government to take such action under the School Code as
may be permissible. In such au event, the_ recognition accorded to
the school may be withdrawn or the grant-in-aid may be stopped.
In the instant case the appellant is seeking a relief not against a
c private body but against an officer of Government who is always
amen~ble to the jurisdiction of the Court. The appellant has merely
sought the quashing of the impugned order dated November 26,
1976 passed by the Director on review setting aside the order of
the Deputy Director. What consequences follow from the quashing
D of the above said order in so far as the management is concerned is
an entirely different issue. In the circumstances, the High Court
was wrong in holding that a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution did not lie against the impugned order passed by the
Director. We are aware of some of the decisions in which it is
observed that no teacher could enforce a right under the School
E Code which is non-statutory in character against the management.
But since this petition is principally directed against the order
passed in a quasi-judicial proceeding by the Director, 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, we hold that the appellant was entitled to maintain the petition
F under Article 226 of the Constitution.

On merits it is nqt disputed that neither the Deputy Director
nor the Director of Education had the power to review the orders
passed by them earlier. The Director had affirmed the order of the
Deputy Director by his order dated May 12, 1976. The order
G passed by the Deputy Director on October 3, 1975 remanding the
case to the management for holding a fresh enquiry thus became •
final. The Director had no power to review his earlier order. The '

High Court should have in the circumstances set aside the order
dated November 26, 1976 passed by the Director on review setting
aside the order passed by the Deputy Director. We, therefore, set
H aside the order dated November 26, 1976 passed by the Direetor of
TihRAM v. id. S. P. MANDAL (Venkataramiah, i.) 343
Education and restore the order dated October 3, 1975 passed by A
the Deputy Director of Education remanding the case to the manage-
ment for holding a fresh enquiry. The management may now
proceed to hold the enquiry in accordance with law, if it considers
it necessary. The appellant is entitled to all consequential .benefits
flowing from this order.
B
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

H.S.K. Appeal allowed.

-