BANMALI Vs. DISTRICT BOARD JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was appointed as assistant teacher in the primary school by the Jhansi District Board in the year 1948 in a temporary vacancy and was confirmed in July, 1951. As an assistant teacher he was paid a salary of Rs. 35/- plus Rs. 12/- as dearness allowance. In September, 1952, he was appointed head master and was paid Rs. 45/- as basic pay plus Rs. 13/-p.m. as dearness allowance. He was entitled to an increment of Re. 1/- per year. In 1954 he was drawing the basic salary of Rs. 47/- plus Rs. 13/- as deamess allowance. In March, 1955, the applicant was informed by the District Board, Jhansi through its President that he had been reverted to the post of an assistant teacher from 1-2-1955 on account of some financial stringency in the Board. The petitioner alleges that he made several efforts with the Board to pay him his salary as head master but it has had no effect and consequently he filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certidrari be issued quashing the order demoting the petitioner from his substantive post of head master's scale to that of an assistant teacher.

(2.) Notice was issued to the District Board, Jhansi and a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner has not been reduced by way of any punishment but it had been done as a measure of economy to reduce the expenditure of the Education Department of the District Board. The expenditure of the Board increased due to the recommendations of the Pay Committee and the Government grant was not increased with the result that the financial resources of the District Board were greatly depleted and it was not possible for the Board to meet its liabilities and, as a measure of economy, the applicant along with other head masters was reverted to the post of an assistant teacher. The petitioner, according to the Board, was not entitled to any notice to show cause against the order proposed as he was reverted on account of financial stringency and not as a result of disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) The petition was originally based on the ground that the order of demotion was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the order. It was, however, subsequently amended and a further ground was ordered to be added that the services of the applicant had been determined in violation of Rule 3A printed at page 189 of the District Board Manual. Both these points have been strenuously pressed by the applicant. Firstly, it is contended by the applicant that the District Board, Jhansi is a statutory body. It has to act in accordance with the provisions of the statute and unless there is any power given to the President to terminate the services of an employee or to demote him, he has no power to do so. It was further contended that if it be accepted that the Board or its President has power to remove an employee from its services, then such a power of removal must carry with it the corresponding obligation to give an opportunity to an employee to show cause against the proposed order of removal or reduction in rank. The argument of the petitioner, in effect, is that the words "removal or reduction" in the rule printed at page 193 of the District Board Manual cannot be given a restricted meaning. They must be given their literal meaning having regard to the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.