THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, SILCHAR COLLEGIATE SCHOOL (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY) Vs. DEBIPADA BHATTACHARJEE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from a Judgment of a Single Judge made on 5.11.92 in civil Rule No. 476 of 1989. The facts leading to the writ petition are in brief as follows. The Silchar Collegiate School is a recognised institution run by a private body. The Petitioner was initially appointed as temporary teacher in school with effect from 1.4.76; later as the Vice -Principal temporarily with effect from 1.1.83. The Petitioner was confirmed has Assistant Teacher with effect from 1.4.88. Thereafter, by a resolution dated 4.2.89 of the Managing Committee of the School, the Petitioner was reverted from the post of the Vice -Principal to his substantive post of the Assistant Teacher with effect from 6.2.89, and Smti Ratna De was promoted as the Assistant Headmistress purely on temporary basis. Thereafter notice dated 4.2.89 was issued by the management reverting the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher and appointing Rama De as the Assistant Head -mistress. Against the reversion from the post of Vice -Principal, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Inspector of Schools, Cachar. The Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 17.2.39, forwarded tire representation to the Secretary of the Managing Committee for point -wise comment on the representation, and directed the Secretary not to give effect to she notice dated 4.2.89. But the Management did not obey the direction of the inspector. In the writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the notice dated 4.2.89.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge has held that the Petitioner was reverted from the post of Vice -Principal to his substantive post of Assistant Teacher in violation of the rules of natural justice and that the school is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for the management did not object to the application of the Assam Aided Higher Secondary, High and Middle School Management Rules, 1976 ('Rules for short), and apart from public duty to be performed by the Managing Committee there is interference by the Government agencies, namely, the Inspector of Schools, under relevant rules. The learned Judge quashed the impugned notice and directed the Managing Committee to reinstate the Petitioner as the Vice -Principal and granted consequential reliefs mentioned in the Judgment. Hence this appeal by the management.

(3.) ONE of the questions which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the Inspector of Schools has control over the teachers of the school in question on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. It is not disputed that the school does not receive grant -in -aid from the State Government, that is to say, the school is purely a private institution. However, the order dated 30.5.87 of the Inspector of Schools (Annexure -G to the writ petition) indicates that the Inspector, in the exercise of the power under the Rules, reconstituted the Managing Committee. The Rules indicates that they apply to aided school. There is no indication that Rules apply to an unaided private school. It may be as a matter of courtesy, the management forwarded to the Inspector names of the persons proposed as office bearers and members of the Managing Committee, and the Inspector accordingly purported to reconstitute the Committee. The Rules do not give any such power to the Inspector. Recognition of a private school is dealt with by the Assam Education Department Rules and Orders. Under para 6 of that Rules and Orders, in respect of Managing Committee of a private recognised school, it is sufficient if the school is under the control of management of a regularly constituted committee in which teaching staff is represented.