SHAKUNTATA SAHGAL Vs. D P I HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether a writ could be issued against a society, which is running an aided school receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government under the Andhra Pradesh Education Code, in the matter of promotion to the post of Principal of that institution It is the case of the petitioner that he being the seniormost Assistant in the School duly qualified, for the post, was entitled by virtue of her seniority to be appointed to the post of Principal which bad fallen vacant. The management of the aided institution which vests in a registered society has, instead appointed the 3rd respondent as the Principal. The 3rd respondent was acting as Vice-Principal since April 1973. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent is junior to the petitioner in service The management contends that seniority in service is not the sole criterion for appointment to the post of Principal of the School and the Petitioner cannot claim that post as of right. The two questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition are (\) whether a writ can be issued against a registered society managing an aided institution in the matter of promotion to the post of Principal, and (2) whether post of Principal has to be filled by the Senior-most Assistant in the School and such seniormost Assistant can, as of right, claim to be appointed to that post. The respondents contend that no writ lies against a registered society which is not a statutory body. Moss V. Management of St Particks High School} it is held that grant-in-aid rules, which form part of the A.P. Education Code, are not statutory rules A Full Bench of this Court has in Harijandar Singh V. Selection Committee, Kakathiya Medical College] that in schools receiving grant-in-ald, the relationship of teacher and management is not purely one of master and servant but a sort of tripartite relationship and that the teachers of affiliated institutions have a status apart from their contractual relationship and that in any case they hold office. The Full Bench further held: "Public bodies such as affiliated colleges placed as they are cannot be called as pure private bodies discharging purely private duties. Nor they can be characterised as domestic tribunals in the strict sense of that word. The relationship of teachers with such colleges is based on a tripartite arrangement and contract. Their appointments are made by a committee constituted under the statute as above.

(2.) The appointment is to be approved by the University. There can be an appeal against any order in any dispute between the teacher and the college to the University as well as to the Director of Public Instruction. The University can direct the teacher to be reinstated: so also the Director of Public Instruction can. The teacher's salaries are fixed. The tenure of office assured. In some cases their salaties can directly be paid to them by the Director of Public Instruction. All those and other features clearly and unmistakably point out that the teachers of affiliated colleges have a status apart from their contractual relationship and in any case they held office.

(3.) We think that a pure 'master and servant case must be distinguished from the case of teacher in an affiliated college.