The School Code framed under the M.P. Secondary Education Act, 1951, was not applicable to teachers serving in Municipal Council schools, and the conditions of service of such teachers were governed by the bye-laws framed by the Municipal Council under the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922.

Headnote:
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - SERVICE CONDITIONS - RETIREMENT AGE - SCHOOL CODE - APPLICABILITY - BYE-LAWS FRAMED BY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - CONFLICT - PREVALENCE - SECONDARY SCHOOLS CODE - REPEAL OF M.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, 1951 - EFFECT - SAVING CLAUSE - ABSENCE - OLD SCHOOL CODE - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher in a Municipal Indian English Middle School, was appointed as Headmaster in a Municipal High School in 1973. The respondent, the Headmaster of the High School, was to retire at the age of 58 years as per Municipal bye-laws. However, the Director of Municipal Administration ordered his reinstatement after his retirement, resulting in the petitioner's reversion to the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner challenged these orders, contending that the School Code framed under the M.P. Secondary Education Act, 1951, was not applicable to teachers serving in Municipal Council schools, and that the respondent was not entitled to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the School Code framed under the M.P. Secondary Education Act, 1951, was not applicable to teachers serving in Municipal Council schools. The conditions of service of such teachers were governed by the bye-laws framed by the Municipal Council under the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922. The Court further held that the repeal of the M.P. Secondary Education Act, 1951, resulted in the automatic repeal of the School Code framed thereunder, as there was no saving clause to protect it.
Issues: 1. Whether the School Code framed under the M.P. Secondary Education Act, 1951, was applicable to teachers serving in Municipal Council schools? 2. Whether the respondent was entitled to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the School Code framed under the M.P. Secondary Education Act, 1951, was not applicable to teachers serving in Municipal Council schools because: a) The statement of objects and reasons of the School Code indicated that it was intended to apply to schools run by private societies and not to schools run by Government or local authorities. b) The provisions of the School Code themselves indicated that they were not meant for schools run by Government or local authorities. c) No agreement was executed between the respondent and the Municipal Council as contemplated by the School Code. 2. The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years because: a) The bye-laws framed by the Municipal Council under the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, fixed the retirement age for Municipal employees at 58 years. b) The repeal of the M.P. Secondary Education Act, 1951, resulted in the automatic repeal of the School Code framed thereunder, as there was no saving clause to protect it.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the orders of the Director of Municipal Administration and the Municipal Council, and reinstated the petitioner as Headmaster of the Municipal High School.

JUDGMENT - Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Petitioner Babulal Dalchand Maloniya was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Municipal Indian English Middle School, Saoner, on 2-7-1951. After the necessary training he was appointed on a regular scale from 5-4-1954 and was also confirmed in the said post with effect from 5-4-1954 itself. In the year 1957 the Indian English Middle School run by the Municipal Council was converted into a fullfledged High School and the petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Teacher in the same High School. In the year 1969, the petitioner was selected for training of B.Ed. course and he successfully passed the said examination in the year 1970. Thus, the petitioner was working as a trained Assistant Teacher in the Municipal High School. The third respondent to this petition, namely, Wasudeo Laxman Bharadwaj, was working as a Headmaster of the said High School. On 30-12-1972 respondent No. 3 Bharadwaj was to complete his age of 58 years, which is the age of superannuation according to the Municipal bye-laws. Therefore, the Municipal Council, Saoner served an order dated 31-12-1971. Thus respondent No. 3 Bharadwaj was made to retire from service on 30-12-1972. Consequent upon his retirement, the petitioner was ordered to officiate in the post of Headmaster vide order dated 1-12-1972 issued by the Administrator of the Municipal Council, Saoner. Thereafter vide order dated 31-1-1973 the petitioner was appointed as the Headmaster in a substantive capacity. After receiving the notice dated 31-12-1971, the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the Director of Municipal Administration with his representation -cum-appeal dt.14-9-1972. The petitioner was not made a party to the said appeal, nor he was given any opportunity of being heard before an order was passed by the Director of Municipal Administration dated 12-2-1973 whereby respondent No. 3 Bharadwaj was directed to be reinstated as a Headmaster of the Municipal High School. After receiving this order of the Director, the Administrator of the Municipal Council, Saoner issued an under dated 21-2-1973 reinstating respondent No. 3 Bhanradwaj as a Headmaster in the Municipal High School with immediate effect. Consequent upon this order of reinstatement of respondent No. 3 Bharadwaj as the Headmaster Council, Saoner further ordered reversion of the petitioner to his original post of the Assistant Teacher. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

2. According to the petition, the order passed by the Director of Municipal Administration is without jurisdiction. It was also contented on behalf of the petitioner, that it was not open for the Director of the Municipal Administration to exercise any such powers or act contrary to the Government instructions. According to the petitioner, he was not given any opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed by the Director of the Municipal Administration, and therefore, the said order is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said order passed by the Director of the Municipal Administration resulted in reversion of the petitioner to the post of the Assistant Teacher, and therefore, has resulted in civil consequences. In any case, therefore, before passing of the said order it was obligatory on the part of the Director to give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that according to the Municipal bye-laws the age of retirement of all municipal employees is 58 years. The respondent No.3 was an employee of Saoner Municipal Council, and therefore, according to the bye-laws of the Municipal Council, Saoner, it was not open for the Municipal Council to retain him in service after he attained the age of 58 years. It was then contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Director of the Municipal Administration committed an error, apparent on f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis