CHUNILAL ISHWARLAL PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us had preferred a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No. 144 of 1981 in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. The learned Judicial Commissioner, by his judgment and order dated 16th October, 1981, dismissed the writ petition holding that the petition was not maintainable, because the rules and provisions of the Grant-in-aid Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) did not create any right in the petitioner. Since the petitioner was apparently trying to enforce the right arising out of the Code, the petition could not be admitted because no relief could be given in the said petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Judicial Commissioner, the petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Before proceeding to consider the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, who was the Head Master of a school conducted by the 5th respondent in this appeal, it would be appropriate to recapitulate all the relevant facts. The appellant has been appointed in the school as Head Master on probation on 14th November, 1969. Before he completed two years in that position, his services were terminated by an order dated 15th September, 1971. This order of termination of his services was challenged by the appellant in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code.

(3.) At this stage itself we would briefly refer to the relevant provision of the Code. Rule 65 of the Code mentions that in the case of a permanent vacancy, a teacher should ordinarily be appointed on probation for some definite period, exceeding two years, after which he will be made permanent, provided he is trained and his work is found satisfactory. In this Rule, viz. Rule 65, nothing is mentioned about the termination of services of teachers appointed under the said Rule. However, by an order dated 27th March, 1972 the Director of Education of Government of Goa, Daman & Diu informed all the persons concerned that the services of teachers on probation in Non-Government Secondary School should be terminated by the management unless the case is first referred to a Committee consisting of representative of the management, representative of the Teachers Association and representative of the Department of Education. The last mentioned representative was to be nominated by the Director of Education himself. The said order also mentioned that final decision was to be taken by the Management only after obtaining the views of the above mentioned committee. Though this order is dated 27th March, 1972, the direction containing this order was to apply to cases wherein termination order had been issued by management after 25th March, 1971. Wherein services has been terminated before the coming into force of this order, it was directed that the teacher concerned should be taken back by the management and thereafter the procedure laid down in the said order should be followed. In one sense, this order was engrafted into Rule 65.