ORDER : This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash Exts. R-1, R-2, P-11 and P-12 orders. The petitioner was appointed as the Head-master of Oriental High School under the management of the third respondent, Devaswom, by order, Ext. P-1, dated 17-5-1957, and he took charge as Head-master three days later. The period of appointment was one year from the date of taking charge. Normally, this would have expired on 20-5-1958; but by virtue of subsequent orders, Exts. P-4, P-5 and P-6, passed pursuant to Madras Educational Rules, it is the petitioners case, that he had a right to continue in employment until 2-4-1959.

On 17-4-1958, the 3rd respondent terminated the service of the petitioner with effect from 20-5-1958. This, it was complained, was in contravention of orders, Exts. P-4 P-5 and P-6. It is seen, that the second respondent, the Director of Public Instruction, made a clarification by Ext. P-8 on 27-4-1958, that the orders aforesaid had allowed no option to the management to terminate the services of persons like the petitioner who had been re-employed, and that the petitioner may therefore be reinstated in service. There had been subsequent petitions by the petitioner to the second respondent complaining of his termination of service; the third respondent took the matter also to the first respondent, the Government, and finally, Ext. R-2 was passed by the second respondent on 10-7-1958 holding, that the provisions in Exts. P-4, P-5 and P-6 are not mandatory, and that the petitioner will be appointed as an Assistant in the school.

There had been a communication by the first respondent to the second respondent on 8-7-1958, placing this interpretation on the relevant orders on the subject. The first respondent also passed an order, Ext. R-1 on July 14, 1958, stating that the petitioner may be reinstated in service as an Assistant, if the management agreed to do so. Thereupon the third respondent passed an order, Ext. P-11 on 24-7-1958, appointing the petitioner as an Assistant in the school subject to certain conditions which were not fulfilled by him. The petitioner then preferred an appeal against Ext. P-11 to the first respondent, on 27-8-1958, which was decided against him by Ext. P-12 on 27-7-1959. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come up to this court for the relief aforesaid.

2. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 by the learned Government Pleader, that the orders, Exts. P-4, P-5 and P-6, are merely executive instructions, a breach of which is not amenable to judicial review under Art. 226. It has been ruled by a division bench of this court in Joseph Valamangalam v. State of Kerala, 1958 Ker LT 233 : (AIR 1958 Kerala 290) that the Madras Educational Rules, under which the aforesaid orders were issued, are only a body of executive orders and instructions.

A similar view was taken of the Travancore Education Code in T. M. Dasius v. State, 1956 Ker LT 238 : (AIR 1957 Trav-Co. 214) where the learned Judge observed as follows :

"It is not a legislative enactment nor has it the force of a statute and it does not confer any light on private school teachers. Orders of Government in alleged infringement of the provisions of the Code cannot, therefore, be amenable to judicial review at the instance of private school teachers".

But it was contended on behalf of the petitioner, that under clause 10 of Appendix 28 of the Madras Educational Rules, setting out the form of agreement between managements and employees to be adopted by all aided managements, there is a right of appeal for the aggrieved party, in the event of a dispute between the management and himself, to the second respondent in the first instance, and then from his decision to the first respondent and that therefore the conferment of a right of appeal to the second respondent and of a right of second appeal to the first respondent, is sufficient to clothe the orders impugned, with a quasi-judicial ch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document