JAYANTILAL RATILAL THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the Head Master of the Primary School run by Shahpur Education Trust in the city of Ahmedabad. The school is named as Shahpur Balvikas Primary School. He joined the school as the Head Master on 5th June 1972. His employer found that his work was not satisfactory and therefore discharged him from service with effect from the end of the current term of 1974. It appears that against this order of discharge he did not approach any authority but filed this petition.

(2.) The only contention which Mr. Majmudar has raised before me is that the order of discharge made against the petitioner is mala fide and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The first question which arises for my consideration is whether the petitioner has any statutory right in the matter of security of his tenure which has been violated by the impu- gned order of discharge. Mr. Majmudar has invited my attention to sub- sec. (2) of sec. 2 of the Bombay Primary Education Act 1947 which defines approved school. It is an admitted fact that the school in question is an approved school. Sub-sec. (17) of sec. 2 defines Primary School. It is also an admitted fact that the school in question is a Primary School. There is no section in the Bombay Primary Education Act 1947 which attracts or grants a semblance of protection to a teacher or a Head Master against his being discharged from service by his employer.

(3.) Mr. Majmudar has invited my attention to secs. 38 to 40 44 45 46 and 48. He has also invited my attention to Rules 70 and 193 of the Bom- bay Primary Education Rules 1949 Sec. 38 deals with subjects curricula books and standards of teaching of approved schools- Sec. 39 deals with recognition of and grants to approved schools under private management Sec. 40 deals with matters relating to inspection of approved schools. These three sections do not in any manner whatsoever deal with or refer to any statutory protection which a teacher or a Head Master of a Primary School run by a trust has. Sec. 44 deals with primary education fund which is to be maintained by every District School Board and by every authori- sed municipality. It has no reference to matters of security of tenure for teachers or Head Masters of private schools run by trusts. Similarly sec. 45 deals with application of primary education fund. It has got to be read in light of sec. 44. If sec. 44 does not apply to a teacher then sec. 45 cannot apply to it. Sec. 46A deals with the establishment of a provident fund for the staff maintained by District School Boards. The School in question was not run and maintained by the District School Board. Sec. 46 therefore has no application to the instant case. Sec. 48 deals with inspection of schools and authorises the State Government to appoint such officers as it may deem necessary for the purposes of superintendence and inSpection and generally for the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. The appointment and maintenance of the inspectorial staff cannot imply a statutory protection in the matter of tenure of service of teachers and Head Masters of private schools run by a trust. There are no other sections to which Mr. Majmudar has drawn my attention. Sec. 63 confers upon the State Government rule-making power. The Bombay Primary Education Rules 1949 have been made under that section Rule 70 to which Mr. Majmudar has invited my attention defines the duties of primary School Teachers and Head Teachers. It also defines the duties of Taluka Teachers and of teachers appointed as superintendents of Hostels. Rule 70A defines the duties of some Class IV servants. Rule 193 deals with the establishment of provident fund. A close reference to these Rules to which Mr. Majmudar has invited my attention makes it clear that they do not have any application to matters relating to security of tenure for teachers and Head Masters of private schools run by trusts. It is therefore clear that in the matter of security of tenure there is no statutory protection which a primary teacher or a Head Master of a primary school run by a private body or a trust enjoys. If he was no statutory right he cannot seek enforcement of a non-statutory or contra- ctual right by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this High Court. In my opinion so far as a primary teacher is concerned the security of tenure is governed by the relationship of master and servant or by contract. The contractual obligations between master and servant or between an employer and an employee cannot be enforced by a writ of this Court.