AMRATLAL RAMANLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenge various orders passed by the educational authorities on the ground that the impugned orders are arbitrary and discretionary.

(2.) Shortly stated the facts are that the petitioners are the trustees of the "New Education High School Trust, petlad", a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The trust is conducting a secondary school for girls in town of Petlad namely "New Education Girls' High School". One Mrs. S. P. Kothari was appointed as a Head-mistress of the said school on and from June 12, 196 for a period of one year on probation. The management of the School had made rules regarding the conditions of employment and service of teachers. The said rules divide the teachers in two categories, namely, permanent teachers and nonpermanent teacher. Non-permanent teachers include temporary teachers and teachers on probation. Rule 11 of the Rules provides that service of nonpermanent teachers may be terminated by the management at any time without assigning any reasons after giving one calendar month's notice or notice pay in lieu of the notice period. On August 3, 1966 two students studying in Standard XI of the School were driven out of their class by the Head-Mistress on the ground that they had not put on required dress. The guardians of the students intended to offer an explanation but the Head-mistress gave an insolent reply to them. On account of this the students of Standards X and XI of the School went on Strike. On August 4, 1966, the management intervened and persuaded the students to attend their classes. The Head-mistress refused to take their classes, unless and until the students apologised to her. The management received a complaint that one of the students was given a beating by the Head-Mistress. The management called for an explanation from the Head-Mistress but she did not give any satisfactory explanation. The management also noticed that the tuition given by the Head-Mistress in English was not satisfactory and she had taken casual leave of 61/2 days during the shot period of her service. A meeting of the trusted of the trust was called on August 7, 1966, whereat the Head-Mistress was also requested to remain present to give an explanation of her defaults. At the said meeting the trustees sought an explanation from the Head-Mistress for the aforesaid defects and misconducts. The Head-Mistress gave her explanation on all counts but the trustees found the same to be unsatisfactory. Thereafter a meeting of the trustees of the trust was held on August 21, 1966 and it was unanimously resolved to discharge the Head-Mistress by serving a legal notice of one month. The Head- Misterss had not served the school for a full term, and, therefore, no confidential report was maintained by the management. The Head-Mistress made an application to the Director of Education, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, who is respondent No. 2 in the present petition. On 1st September, 1966, the Director of Education ordered the petitioners after hearing them that the vacant post of the Head-Mistress should not be filled up till other orders were made. On September 22, 1966, the Director of Education passed an order that the management should either pay to Mrs. Kothari compensation equal to the salary of the remaining part of one year or reinstate her in service and allow her to serve the period of probation. On October 1, 1966 the Educational Inspector, District Kaira, Nadiad, respondent No.3 herein, wrote a letter to the petitioners informing the petitioners that as per instructions from the Director of Education, Mrs. Kothari could not be discharged from service as per the provisions of the Grant-In-Aid Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and the Instructions should continue her till probation period or she be paid for the remaining period. The petitioners same representations to the authorities to reconsider the aforesaid order. The Inspector or Education informed the petitioners by his letter dated February 19, 1968 that if Mrs. Kothari was not paid the salary as per order dated October 1, 1966m the grant for the current year would not be paid. The petitioners thereafter field this petition in the Court on March 18, 1966. A notice was issued on the petition to the respondents as to why the petition should not be admitted. The representative of the petitioners had gone to the office of the Educational Inspector, District Kaira, where he was informed that the petitioners could take the amount of grant admissible to them subject to the condition that they deposited an amount of Rs.2992/-, being the amount of 12 months' salary allegedly payable by them to the Head-Mistress. The petitioners deposited the said amount with the authority. According to the petitioners, the effect of this procedure was that the respondents withheld the payment of Rupees 2992/- being the grant payable by the State, (which is the first respondent in the petition) to the petitioners. The petitioners say that the services of Mrs. Kothari were terminated according to her terms of employment and also in compliance with the provisions of Grant-In-Aid Rules. The petitioners say that the Government is dealing with the public funds while distributing the grant. In the circumstances at present prevailing in the country no educational institution can be maintained or rum without any aid from the State. It is, therefore, the duty of the government to grant aid to the institutions which cater to the educational needs of the community. The Grant-in-Aid to the schools is not a donation but a legitimate re-compensation for assistance rendered to the State by such institutions in discharging one of its primary obligation. The petitioners say that they had complied with the rules of the Grant-In-Ad Code, and there was a duty on the respondents to pay the grant to the institution. Although the payment of grant is at the discretion of the sanctioning authority, the discretion has to be exercised by the authority in a reasonable and bona fide manner and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The State Government has framed rules for the purpose of grants and the grant is receivable by an institution which complies with the said rules. The petitioners say that the orders dated September 22, 1966, October 1, 1966, February 19, 1968 and February 28, 1968 passed by the Educational Authorities are arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the Rules of the Grant-In-Aid Code. The petitioners say that bill for the grant was already issued to them and, therefore, they were entitled to receive the amount. The aforesaid impugned orders thus interfered with the rights of the petitioners to receive the property and, therefore, are violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. P.G.Trivedi, Under-Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Education and Labour Department, filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents. It was stated that the petitioners had not complied with the provisions of Rules 69.1 and 69.2 of the Code and had not given Mrs. Kothari a reasonable opportunity to show cause against her alleged misconduct and therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to the full grant under the provisions of the Code. It is stated in the affidavit that no reasonable opportunity was given to Mrs. Kothari, inasmuch as she was not served with any written notice in respect of the charges levelled against her. Under the Rule 95 of the Code, the Director of Education is competent to withhold, reduce or withdraw the grant for breach of instructions or orders issued by the Department or of any infringement of the provisions of rules. The grant is payable to recognised secondly schools provided they abide by the rules and regulations governing the Code. The petitioners have not complied with the provisions of the code and, therefore, the impugned orders are legal and valid.