CYRIL E FERNANDES Vs. SR MARIA LYDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was employed as a teacher in the Presentation Convent High School, Margao, Goa. The school is recognised by the Dept. of Education of the Govt. of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, the 4th respondent herein, and as a condition precedent to such recognition the school is required to comply with the rules in the grant-in-aid established by the Govt. for granting aid to educational institutions. The first respondent is the Principal and Manager of that school. Some time in March 1974 on receiving a complaint from a girl student and after making an enquiry into the allegation herself, the first respondent wrote to the second respondent, Director of Education of the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, seeking his approval for terminating the services of the appellant.Subrule (2) of Rule 74 of the grant-in-aid Code requires the prior approval of the Deputy Director of Education for the termination of the services of a permanent employee. Rule 74 (2) provides iner alia that the services of a permanent employee may be terminated by the management without assigning any reason on giving as compensation 12 month's salary to the employee if he or she has bee in the service for 10 years or more, and 6 month's salary if he or she has been in the service for less than 10 years, but only after obtaining prior approval of the Deputy Director of Education after examining three girl students who were produced before him gave his approval to the proposed termination of the services of the appellant. By a letter dated June 5, 1974 the first respondent informed the appellant that his services were "being terminated with effect from June 10, 1974." It is not disputed that the salary payable to the appellant under Rule 74 (2) was duly paid.

(2.) The events took a turn in a different direction thereafter. On June 22, 1974 the first respondent received a telegram from the Director of Education asking her to "keep in abeyance" the proposed termination of the appellant's services. The telegram was followed by a letter dated July 25, 1974 addressed by an Under Secretary of the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu directing the management of the school to reinstate the appellant and conduct an enquiry in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 74 of the grant-in-aid Code as, according to him, the termination was "in reality" under Rule 74 (3) for misconduct. Rule 74 (3) provides inter alia that in all cases of termination of service of permanent employees except the cases mentioned in Rule 74 (2),an enquiry shall be held through a properly consitituted enquiry committee. It adds that "such an enquiry can be held only in the case of insubordination, neglect of duties or misconduct (in each case of a serious nature)." The first respondent wrote back stating that the services of the appellant had laready been terminated and the the vacancy filled and that she disagreed with the view that this was a case of termination under Rule 74 (3). Then on October 8, 1974 the Director of Education informed the first respondent that as she hand not "implemented the Government order" to reinstate the teacher and to hold an enquiry under Rule 74 (3), "the maintenance grant other than that part of it that is meant for salary of staff, to be paid to your school has been stopped from today until further orders."

(3.) The first respondent moved the court of the Judicial Commissioner for Goa, Daman and Diu at Panaji for a writ to quash the decision, of the Authorities contained in the two letters dated July 25, 1974 and October 8, 1974. The writ was asked for against the Directior of Education, the Under Secretary who wrote the letter of July 25, 1974, the Government of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, the Union of India, and the Deputy Inspector of Sourth Educational Zone, Margao, goa. The present appellant was also impleaded as a respondent. The Judicial Commissioner held that the termination was under Rule 74 (2) which did not require an enquiry as contemplated in Rule 74 (3) and that the approval given by the Director of Education was valid and could not be subsequently superseded or revoked. It was further held that the direction to reinstate the teacher was without jurisdiction and not binding on the school and therefore, the stoppage of the grant-in-aid on the ground that the management of the school had declined to coply with that direction was wrong an not authorised under the grant-in-aid Code. On the question whether the Code was enforceable by a writ, the Court held on the authority of a decision of the Gujarat Higth Court report in AIR 1972 Guj 260 that though the Code was not a statute but a set of administrative rules "regulating the relations between the management of a school and the Govt.", where as in the present case, the management of the school acted upon the "promises" beld out by the Government in the rules contained in the Code and agreed to "bind themselves to act in future as per the said rules", as between the management and the Government such promises and assurances would be binding and enforceable. The authorities against whom have not preferred any appeal from this decision. The instant appeal is by the teacher whose services were terminated.