SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(AP) 135

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.
M. Sitharamachary
Versus
The Senior Deputy Inspector of Schools, Gannavaram Range
Writ Petn. No 574 of 1955
Decided On : 05-08-1957

Advocates:
K. Narasimham, for Petitioner; D.V. Reddy Pantulu for Govt. Pleader, for Respondents.

A person has as much right to become a member of an Association as to refuse to become a member of that Association.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS OR UNIONS - COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP IN GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ASSOCIATION - VALIDITY - RULES 3 AND 4 OF G. O. MS. NO. 418, EDUCATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH, DATED 24TH FEBRUARY, 1939 - HELD INVALID AS ABRIDGING THE RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ART. 19 (1) (C) OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an elementary school teacher, challenged the validity of Rules 3, 4, and 5 of G. O. Ms. No. 418, Education and Public Health, dated 24th February, 1939, which made it compulsory for all teachers in recognized elementary schools to become members of the Association sponsored by the Government.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Rules 3 and 4 of the impugned Rules, which made it compulsory for every teacher to become a member of the Association and provided for punishment for absence from two consecutive meetings, were invalid as they abridged the rights of the teachers guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

Issues: Whether the impugned Rules violated the fundamental right to form associations or unions guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to form an association or union necessarily implies the right to refuse to be a member of an association or union. The impugned Rules, by making it compulsory for every teacher to become a member of the Association and providing for punishment for absence from meetings, infringed this right.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and declared Rules 3 and 4 of the impugned Rules to be void as constituting an abridgment of the right guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

ORDER : This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ to direct the Senior Deputy Inspector of Schools, Gannavram Range, and the State of Andhra, represented by its Secretary, Education Department, not to enforce Rr. 3, 4 and 5 of G. O. Ms. No. 418, Education and Public Health, dated the 24th of February, 1939.

2. The applicant has been working as an elementary school teacher since 1940. He was elected as the Secretary of the Elementary School Teachers Association Centre, Telaprole, for a number of terms. He was also elected as the Joint Secretary of the Andhra Rastra Elementary Teachers Federation, Vijayawada, in 1954 The Elementary School Teachers Association Centre. Telaprole was constituted under the rules framed in G. O. Ms. No. 418, Education and Public Health, dated the 24th February, 1939. Rules 3, 4 and 5 run as follows :

"(3) All teachers (men and women teachers) in recognised elementary schools, whether under public or private management in the area served by the Association, including teacher-manager in the area, shall be members of the Association. None other than these shall be admitted as members.

(4) The Association shall meet once a month preferably on a holiday at a convenient centre and with a programme of work determined at the previous meeting. A teacher who absents himself from two consecutive meetings will be liable to be punished by the controlling authority, the controlling authority for the purpose in the case of a school under private management being the Deputy Inspector, Senior Grade, or the Sub-Assistant Inspectress, as the case may be. (5) The Deputy Inspector (Senior Grade or Junior Grade) or the Sub-Assistant Inspectress of Schools having jurisdiction in the area served by the Association, shall be ex-officio President of the Association. When the ex-officio President is unable to attend a meeting, the teachers assembled shall elect a President from among themselves. The members of the Association may elect a Secretary and Treasurer from among themselves subject to the approval of the President."

3. It is submitted by the petitioner that the rules have the result of abridging the fundamental rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution, and more particularly, Art. 19 (1) (a) and (c). The contention in brief is that the aforesaid rules in so far as they make it compulsory for every teacher, in an elementary school, to become a member of the Association sponsored by the Government, at the risk of suffering disciplinary action, are inconsistent with the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government in the Education Department, it is submitted that the Association has been sponsored by the Government with the object of increasing the efficiency of teachers; that making the membership of this Association compulsory to every teacher under R. 3, does not in any way violate the fundamental right of the petitioner; that it is in no sense a restriction imposed upon his fundamental right guaranteed to him under Art. 19 (1) (c) and even assuming that it is a restriction, it is in the interests of public order and morality.

5. Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution declares that all citizens have the right to form associations or unions and clause (4) of Art. 19 provides that a law imposing a reasonable restriction on the right of association can be made only in the interest of public order or morality.

6. What is claimed in this writ petition is not the right to form an association but the right to refuse to belong to an association or union. As has been pointed out in Suryapal Singh v. U P. Government. AIR 1951 All 674 at p. 698 (FB) (A), the right to form an association or union necessarily implies that a person is free to refuse to be a member of an association or union, if he so desires.

7. In R. v. Dr Askew. 1768-4 Burr 2186 at p. 2200 (B), the rules had been stated thus :

"If







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top