Markandey Katju, C.J.: This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 20.11.2003. By that order, the school management has been directed to pay salary of a regular teacher to the first respondent herein, for the period for which he worked i.e. from 11.8.1997.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same.

4. Admittedly, the first respondent had been appointed on 10.8.1997 as a Post Graduate Teacher in Commence.

Rule 15(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 states as follows:

‘Promotion shall be made on grounds of merits and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal.

- (ii) Appointments to the various categories of teachers shall be made by the following methods.

- (i) Promotion from among the qualified teachers in that school -

(ii) If no qualified and suitable candidate is available by method (i) above,- (a) Appointment of other persons employed in that school, provided they are fully qualified to hold the post of teachers.

- (b) Appointment of teachers from any other school .

- (c) Direct recruitment."

5. A perusal of the above Rule shows that appointment of outsiders can only be made if no qualified and suitable internal teacher is available. In other words. Sub-clause (ii) of Rule 15(4) will only apply when no teacher falling in the category of Sub-clause (i) of Rule 15(4) is available. It is undisputed that there were teachers available as specified in Sub-clause (i) of Rule 15(4) i.e. internal candidates. Hence the appointment of the first respondent who was an outsider was clearly illegal. It was rightly set aside by the Joint Director of School Education by order dated 17.12.2001 and that order has been rightly confirmed by the learned single Judge. Admittedly, during the period when the first respondent was working i.e. from 11.8.1997 to October 2004, he has been paid a consolidated salary of Rs.1,050 p.m. (latere enhanced to Rs.1,250 p.m.) from the donations received by the Management. The learned Single Judge has directed that the first respondent should be paid salary of a regular teacher for the period for which he had worked i.e. from 11.8.1997. We are of the opinion that this direction of the learned single Judge for payment of salary as a regular teacher for the period for which the first respondent worked, cannot be sustained. Admittedly, the first respondent was not a legally appointed teacher. He had been appointed illegally in violation of Rule 15(4) of the Rules. Hence we cannot see how he can be granted salary of a regular teacher.

6. Learned counsel for the first repondent has relied upon the observation made in para.l1 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh v. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association J.T.(2001)9 S.C.C.646: (2002)1 S.C.C.261, in which the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"... Therefore, while the appellant’s promotion to the post of chick-sexer cannot be upheld, given the fact that the appellant had discharged the duties of a Chick-Sexer, he was at least entitled to the pay and other allowances attributable to that post during the period he carried out such duties".

7. In our opinion, the above direction of the Supreme Court cannot be treated as a precedent. It may be mentioned that every direction of the Supreme Court is not a precedent. It is only where the Supreme Court lays down a priciple of law that it will amount to a precedent. Often, the Supreme Court issues directions without laying down any principle of law, in which case, it is not a precedent. For instance, the Supreme Court often directs appointment of someone or regularisation of a temporary employee or payment of salary etc.. without laying down am principle of law. This is often done on humanitarian considerations. But this will not operate as a precedent binding on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document