A private institution, like the second respondent, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act or the Companies Act or Non-Trading Societies Registration Act, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for breach of any administrative or executive instructions.

B. J. DIVAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS matter has come before us on a reference made by our learned brother, Madhava Reddy, J. He felt that the earlier Full Bench decision of this High Court in Harijander Singh v. Kakatiya Medical College, Warrangal, AIR 1975 Andh Pra 35 (FB) is affected by the decision of the Supreme Court in Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain, AIR 1976 SC 888 and that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Harijander Singhs case AIR 1975 Andh Pra 35 (FB) requires reconsideration. He, therefore, referred the whole matter to the Full Bench.

( 2 ) THE matter arises under the following circumstances. The petitioner herein is the senior most Assistant in the school conducted by the second respondent-society. The second respondent-society was registered under the Hyderabad Non-trading Societies Registration Act, which is still in force. The first respondent is the Director of Public Instruction II. Hyderabad and the 3rd respondent is another Assistant in the school conducted by the second respondent-society. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she is the senior most Assistant in the school and is duly qualified for the post, overlooking her seniority, the 3rd respondent, who is her junior by several years, has been appointed as the principal. The second respondent-society is running this school with the aid received under the Grant-in-aid Code from the State Government. It is common ground that the Andhra Pradesh Education Code is not under any statute, but is only by virtue of administrative instructions issued by the Government from time to time. It is also common ground that, since April 1973, the 3rd respondent was working as the Vice-Principal. There is no dispute about the fact that the 3rd respondent is junior to the petitioner in service. It is the contention of the second respondent-society that seniority in service is not the sole criterion for appointment to the post of Principal of the school and that the petitioner cannot claim that post as of right. Under the administrative orders issued from time to time by the Government an appeal lay to the first respondent and the first respondent heard the appeal against the decision of the second respondent-society and that appeal was dismissed and thereafter the present writ petition came to be filed.

( 3 ) IT was the contention of the petitioner that, under the administrative instructions in the form of G. Os. issued from time to time by the Government, she had a right to be appointed to the post of Principal and hence her case should have been considered and the administrative instructions should not have been overlooked. She also contended that she possesses better qualifications as compared to the 3rd respondent particularly as regards the teaching of Hindi.

( 4 ) AS we have already observed, the two questions, which our learned brother, Madhava Reddy J. has dealt with in his order of reference, are (1) Whether a writ can be issued against a registered society managing an aided institution in the matter of promotion to the post of Principal; (2) whether the post of Principal has to be filled by the senior most Assistant in the school and such senior most Assistant can, as of right, claim to be appointed to that post. As regards the position of members of the teaching staff serving in aided educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, there are two decisions of the Supreme Court. The first of these decisions is State of Assam v. Ajit Kumar Sarma, AIR 1965 SC 1196. In that case, the Supreme Court laid down :"there is no law to prevent the State from prescribing the conditions for giving grants-in-aid to educational institutions by mere executive instructions which have not the force of statutory rules. The Assam Aided College Employees Rules (1960) regarding conduct and discipline of employees of Aided Educational Institutions admittedly have no statutory force and are framed in order to give revised grants to pri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document