THE STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF TIRUCHIRAPALLI Vs. THE SAVITRI VIDYASALA HINDU GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, TIRUCHI, BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, PADMA SRI N. RAMASWAMI IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff is a permanently recognised educational institution, which has the benefit of the grant -in -aids as provided for in the Grant -in -aid Code of the Madras Educational Department. Daring the year 1960 -61, the plaintiff Institution secured a surplus in its funds. It is common ground that teaching grants on behalf of this school was also available to the institution. But in the course of its management, it appears, the plaintiff secured an available surplus, which is utilised for purposes of constructing a well, overhead tank and bath room, besides installing pumpsets within the campus of the school and electrifying new buildings constructed in it and also putting up of a road to the school building. It is also common ground that before the amounts were spent for the above improvements, no prior approval of the Director of School Education was obtained. After the financial year was over, the accounts of the plaintiff -institution were audited. It was only then, it was discovered by the auditor that a sum of Rs. 11490 - -56 was spent by the authorities from the available surplus towards the above improvements. When this was brought to the notice of the Director, the correspondent was requested to offer his remarks as to how the amounts were spent without the prior sanction of the department. Consequent upon this attitude, a further grant, which ought to have been made in the usual course to the extent of Rs. 11490, was withheld from the teaching grant pending consideration of the objections to the audit report as above and of the explanation called for from the institution. The Inspectors of Circle Schools Thanjavur Circle, reported that the necessity and urgency of the work compelled the institution to undertake it without taking prior sanction. After protracted correspondence, the Director of Public Instruction, informed the plaintiff -institution on 20th February 1963 that as the expenditure was incurred without obtaining the prior approval of the Director as required under the rules, amount withheld for the subsequent year towards the teachers' grant cannot be released: A further appeal for reconsideration to the very same authority was of no avail. The subsequent request for revision of the order was rejected on 25th January 1965. The plaintiff, therefore, has come to court stating that the withholding of the grant for the year under consideration by the Director of Public Instruction, in the circumstances stated above, is neither just not legal. The case of the plaintiff is that as the expenditure was incurred for the improvements of the institution and particularly, for educational purposes, and as there is no specific rule to the effect that the prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction is necessary in the matter of expending surplus money in the hands of recognised schools to spend on improvements to the school, it is entitled to the grant of the sum of Rs. 11490, as according to it, there was no violation of any of the conditions of recognition or aid as prescribed in the rules. The defendant filed a written statement, Specifically taking the stand that under R. 32 (iii) of the Grant -in -aid Code, such prior approval of the Director was necessary and as no such permission was admittedly obtained prior to the expending of the surplus amount in the hands of the institution, the order challenged by the plaintiff whereby, the grant of Rs. 11490 for the year in question was with held, was in order. It is also claimed that the said order is in accordance with the rules of the Code. It is significant, however, to note that in the written statement, the defendant did not take up the position that the expenditure was not towards the improvements of this school or its building. The defendant would also say that it was the Director, who is entitled under the Code to interpret the rules and he had also the discretion to refuse, withdraw or modify any grant to be granted under the Code to any institution. It is claimed that the plaintiff has no right to enforce sanction of the payment of grant, since no civil right has been affected and, therefore, the suit as framed by the plaintiff is not entertainable in law.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, who tried the suit, after hearing the parties, and after considering the documentary evidence filed, came to the conclusion that the only rule relied upon by the defendant to sustain its case that there was a violation of the prescriptions therein, namely, R.32(iii) does not expressly provide for a prior approval of the Director before the improvements to the school are undertaken by an institution, which improvements are to be made from and out of the profits or surplus gained by the aided institutions during a particular financial year. He was, therefore, of the view that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree as prayed for. It is as against this, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Two contentions were raised by the learned Government Pleader. The first one is that under Ex. B. I, detailed instructions were given by the Educational department to the persons, who have to administer the fund and grants -in -aid under it. He would in particular refer to paragraph 19 of such instructions, which says that full details regarding the expenditure should be furnished and the number and date of the Director's proceedings approving the expenditure as required in R.32 (iii) of the Grant -in -aid Code should be quoted. This not having been done, it is said that there is a violation of the conditions of recognition or aid. Secondly, on the text of R.32 (iii) it is argued that such prior approval is a condition precedent for undertaking any improvements to the school from and out of the accumulated surplus. Even in the written statement, the main ground which is pressed into service to sustain the contention of the State, is that under R.32 (iii), no such improvements could be done without the prior sanction.