Judgement

NATARAJAN, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Gauhati High Court rendered in Second Appeal No. 19 of 1978. By a quirk of fate the appellant who was holding a permanent post of Auditor in the Office of the Accountant General, Assam resigned his job and took up appointment as a Lecturer in an aided college In Meghalaya only to find his appointment terminated in five months time for want of approval for the appointment by the Director of Public Instruction. The backdrop of events for this appeal are as narrated below.

2. The appellant who was a confirmed Auditor in the Office of the Accountant General, Assam responded to an advertisement in the Assam Tribune dt. 21-2-75 and offered himself as a candidate for appointment as a Lecturer in English in Lady Keane Girls College, Shillong. Respondents 2 and 3 are respectively the Principal and the President of the Governing Body of the said College. After being interviewed along with other candidates on 27-3-75 the appellant was selected for the post and was issued an order of appointment on 7-4-75. The order of appointment, however, stated that the appointment was subject to the approval of the Director of Public Instruction, Meghalaya, the first respondent herein. On the appellant seeking clarification from the principal about this condition he was assured that the sanction of approval was a formality and there was no jeopardy to his appointment. Acting on this assurance the appellant resigned his post in the Accountant Generals Office and joined the College on 2-5-75. To his shock he received a communication from the Principal on 11-9-75 enclosing a copy of letter of the first respondent dt. 28-8-75 informing him that his services would be terminated with effect from 17-9-75. By reason of the appellants representations the matter was kept in abeyance till 1-12-75 when he received a further communication stating that his services were being terminated with immediate effect for want of prior approval of the first respondent.

3. The appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Shillong to challenge the order of termination and sought the reliefs to declaration and permanent injunction. The trial court granted ad interim injunction and later made it absolute and in terms thereof the appellant continued to be in service till 20-4-77 on which date the trial court dismissed the suit and vacated the injunction.

4. The Assistant District Judge held that the appointment of the appellant without prior approval of the Director of Public Instruction was irregular and furthermore the appointment contravened the Governments Resolution regarding the reservation of posts for backward sections of the people of the State and that the policy applied to all Government institutions as well as private institutions aided by the Government. The trial court further held that in any event the appellant will not be entitled to a relief of declaration regarding his continuance in service and that the remedy for the appellant under law, if any, is to file a suit for damages for wrongful dismissal and seek reliefs.

5. The appellant preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Shillong. The learned Appellate Judge held that except the oral testimony of the Deputy Director of Public Instruction regarding the Governments reservation policy there was no material on record to show the formation of any such policy and much less that the policy of the Government had been published or even communicated to the aided colleges prior to the appellant being appointed. The learned Judge also held that in the absence of any notification or circular by the Government (of Meghalaya) showing that the Assam Aided Colleges Management Rules, 1965, had been adopted it was not possible to hold that the Government had actually adopted the said rules. The Appellate Judge, therefore, held that the Director of Public Instruction had acted wrongly in refusing to give approval to