1. Teacher in private college put on compulsory leave without pay for contesting elections under executive rules for grant-in-aid — Challenge to validity of such rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 275
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
27th October, 1964.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
The State of Assam and another, Appellants
Versus
Ajit Kumar Sarma and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1062 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate with him), for Appellants; Mr. M. K. Ramamurthy, Advocate amicus curiae for Respondent No. 1.
Advocates:
G.S.PATHAK, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, NAUNIT LAL
G.S.PATHAK, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, NAUNIT LAL
Executive instructions governing conditions for grant-in-aid to private institutions do not have statutory force and do not create vested legal rights for employees. Consequently, such instructions cannot form the basis of a writ petition under Article 226 for their enforcement or non-enforcement.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Administrative instructions vs. Statutory rules - Conditions for grant-in-aid to private educational institutions - Whether executive instructions governing grants confer any legal right on employees of the institution - Mere administrative instructions do not have the force of law and cannot be the basis for a writ petition under Article 226 by an employee to enforce or prevent their enforcement. (Paras 11, 12)
(B) Writ of Mandamus - Scope - Not maintainable where the petitioner has no vested legal right arising out of mere executive instructions. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
A teacher in a private aided college was granted leave with pay to contest elections by the college governing body. However, the state authority directed that such leave must be without pay, citing rules for the conduct of employees in aided institutions. The college subsequently revised its decision to grant leave without pay to avoid the withdrawal of grant-in-aid. The teacher challenged the validity of these rules and the state's direction via a writ petition, contending that the rules lacked statutory force.
Findings of Court:
The rules were found to be mere executive instructions and not statutory rules. The state is entitled to prescribe conditions for grants via executive instructions. If a private college accepts these conditions to receive aid, the state may withhold the grant if the conditions are not met. Such conditions are a matter between the state and the governing body of the college.
Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to prevent the state from enforcing administrative instructions that serve as conditions for grant-in-aid, and whether such instructions create any enforceable legal right for the employees of the aided institution.
Ratio Decidendi: Executive instructions regarding grant-in-aid are matters between the state and the governing body of the private institution. Such instructions do not confer any legal or vested right on the employees of the institution. Therefore, an employee cannot maintain a writ petition for the enforcement or non-enforcement of such administrative instructions, even if the outcome affects them indirectly, as there is no vested right arising out of mere executive instructions.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether executive rules for grant-in-aid have statutory force — Whether a writ of mandamus lies against administrative instructions not having the force of law. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Executive instructions for grant-in-aid are matters between the State and the college; they do not confer enforceable rights on teachers via writ jurisdiction. (Para 11 )
4. Mere administrative instructions or executive orders do not have the status of law and cannot create vested rights enforceable through a writ of mandamus. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order of High Court granting writ against the State through the Director set aside. (Para 15 )
6. Do executive instructions for grant-in-aid have statutory force?
No, if they are framed as conditions for receiving grants to implement pay scales, they are mere administrative instructions and do not have the force of statutory rules. (Para 11 )
7. Can a teacher enforce administrative instructions regarding grant-in-aid through a writ of mandamus?
No. Such instructions are matters between the State and the Governing Body of the college; they confer no legal rights on teachers to seek enforcement or non-enforcement via Article 226. (Para 11 )
8. What is the legal status of administrative orders in regulating the rights of parties?
Administrative orders or executive instructions do not have the status of law regulating the rights of parties and cannot create vested rights. (Para 12 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J.- This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Assam High Court. Shri Ajit Kumar Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) is a teacher in the Handique Girls College (hereinafter referred to as the College) at Gauhati. He filed a writ petition in the High Court on the following averments. This is a private college teaching up to B.A. standard and affiliated to the Gauhati University established under the Gauhati University Act, No.,16 of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The College is managed by a Governing Body according to the provisions of the Statute for the management of private colleges framed by the Gauhati University under S. 21 (g) of the Act. Under S. 23 (h) of the Act, the Executive Council may frame Ordinances to provide for the emoluments and conditions of service of teachers of the University, including teachers in private colleges. The University has in pursuance if the powers so conferred on it framed rules for the grant of leave to teachers of private colleges which are binding on the Governing Bodies of such colleges, and had actually been adopted by the Governing Body of the College in July 1956 for its teachers. Under these rules the Governing Body of the College cannot compel a teacher to take leave without pay.
2. The College receives grant-in-aid from the State of Assam and there are certain conditions for giving grant-in-aid. These conditions do not provide for withdrawal of the grant-in-aid if a private college fails to put a teacher who seeks election to a legislative or local body on compulsory leave without pay from the date of the filing of nomination till the end of the next academic session or till expiry of the term of the office to which the teacher is elected.
3. The respondent as already stated is a teacher in the College. He applied for leave with pay from January 2, 1962 to March 5, 1962 in order to contest a seat for Parliament. This leave was granted to him by the Governing Body of the College by resolution No. 1 of March 9, 1962. The respondent stood for election and was defeated. He thereupon applied that he be permitted to rejoin his duties from March, 6, 1962 and the Governing Body permitted him to do so by its resolution No. 2 dated March 9, 1962. He therefore worked as such from March 6, 1962. On March 20, 1962, the Director of Public instruction, Assam (hereinafter referred to as the Director) wrote a letter to the Principal and Secretary if the College with reference to the letter of March 10, 1962 from the College in which apparently the Director had been informed of the leave granted to the respondent and certain other teachers in connection with elections to Parliament and Assam Legislative Assembly. In this letter, the Director informed the College that he was unable to approve the resolution of the Governing Body permitting the respondent and certain other teachers to rejoin their duties "immediately". The letter pointed out that such permission was in contravention of R. 7 of the Rules regarding the Conduct and Discipline of the Employees of Aided Educational Institutions (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and could not therefore be approved. The Director also added that the Rules had been framed in 1960 after due consultation with the University and the Assam College Teachers Association. On receipt of this letter, the Governing Body seems to have reconsidered the matter of leave to the respondent, and passed a resolution on April 4, 1962. This letter along with another letter was considered by the Governing Body of the College; and it was resolved in view of these letters that the resolution of March 9, 1962, permitting the respondent to rejoin duties from March 6, 1962 could not be given effect to. It was further resolved that the respondent and some other teachers be granted leave in accordance with the Rules. This resolution of the Governing Body was conveyed to the respondent by the Principal of the College by
