AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Ramanujulu Naidu, J.—By a common judgment rendered by our learned sister Amareswari J" Writ Petitions Nos. 2718 and 675 of 1978 were dismissed on 13-11-1978. Writ Appeals Nos. 419 and 427 of 1978 are preferred against the said judgment by the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 2718 and 675 of 1978 respectively. We, therefore, propose to dispose of the Writ Appeals by a common Judgment. The petitioner in Writ Petition No, 2718 of 1978 is a Lecturer in Economics in the D.N.R. College, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, a private educational institution, having been appointed on 26-6-1966. At a meeting of the Governing Council of the College held on 16-11-1969 by its resolution No. 22, he was confirmed in the post. Sri M.S.S. Lakshmana Rao the 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition is also a permanent Lecturer in Economics in the College. He, having been appointed and confirmed earlier than the petitioner is undoubtedly senior to the petitioner. The post of Principal of Veeravasaram Educational Committee Junior College, Veeravasaram, also a private educational institution was advertised to be filled up. The 3rd respondent, one of the applicants for the said post was selected to the post and was accordingly appointed as the principal of the said College. He, therefore, applied to the D.N.R. College, Bheemavaram for sanction of lien over the post held by him in the College for a period of two years commencing from 19-7-1975, the date on which he Joined in the new post. The governing Council of the College, however, granted him lien only for a period of one year from 19-7-1975. Before the expiry of the period of lien granted to him, he again sought extension of lien for one more year by his application dated 14-7-1976 By its resolution No. 33 dated 5-9-1976, the Governing Council of the college rejected his request. It is alleged by the President of the Governing Council of the D.N.R. College, Bheemavaram, the 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition that the order of rejection of the request of the 3rd respondent was communicated to him on 6-9-1976 under Certificate of Posting. It is, however, claimed by the 3rd Respondent that the said order was never received by him, that he has been making repeated representations to the Governing Council of the College for sanction of lien for one more year, that on being appraised by the Secretary and Correspondent of the College in July 1977 that his lien was terminated and on the advice tendered by the Secretary and correspondent of the College he applied to the Governing Council of the College on 5-7-1977 for extension of lien for another year. On 20-1-1977 the petitioner was appointed as Incharge Head of the Department of Economics in the D.N.R. College, Bhimavaram and later, by the proceedings of the Governing Council of the College dated 31-10-1977, he was appointed as Head of the Department of Economics in the College. No decision having been taken arid communicated to him on his representation the 3rd respondent made a representation to the Joint Director of Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on 26-9-1977 seeking necessary directions to the 2nd respondent after calling for on receiving remarks of the 2nd respondent on the representation of the 3rd respondent, the Joint Director of Higher Education, the first respondent in the Writ petition by his proceedings dated 16-12-1977, directed the 2nd respondent to extend the lien of the 3rd respondent till the end of the academic year 1977-78, to take him back into service after the summer vacation of 1977-78 and to retrench the junior most Lecturer in the Department of Economics, if necessary. Consequent upon the said proceedings issued to the first respondent and received by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 675 of 1978. the junior most Lecturer in the Department of Economics in the D.N.R. College, was ousted by the Secretary and Correspondent of the College by his proceedings dated 2-3-1978. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent and the consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, Writ Petition No. 2718 of 1978 was filed by the petitioner therein, while Sri B.H. Ramachandra Raju, the ousted junior most Lecturer, preferred Writ Petition No. 675 of 1978 for issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the same.
In Writ Petition Nos. 675 of 1978 and 2718 of 1978, the Joint Director of Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is impleaded as the first respondent. While in Writ Petition No. 675 of 1978 Sri M.S.S. Lakshmana Rao is impleaded as the 2nd respondent, in Writ Petition No. 2718 of 1978 he is impleaded as the 3rd respondent. The President, Governing Council, D.N.R. College is impleaded as the 3rd respondent in Writ Petition No. 675 of 1978, while he is impleaded as the 2nd respondent in Writ Petition No. 2718 1978. For the sake of convenience; the contesting respondents will, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No. 2718 of,1978.
It is urged on behalf of the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions that u/s 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Recognised Private Educational Institutions (Control) Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Act. an appeal to the prescribed authority is provided against an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or otherwise termination of a teacher emyloyed in any private educational institution, that since no order was passed by the 2nd respondent terminating the services of the 3rd respondent, the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent to the fist respondent is incompetent, that the order of the first respondent dated 16-12-1977 passed on the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent is without jurisdiction and that the first respondent has also no jurisdiction to direct the 2nd respondent to extend lien of the 3rd respondent till the end of the academic year 1977-1978. On the contrary, it is urged on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the action of the management of the D.N.R. College, Bheemavaram in refusing to take him back into service amounted to termination of the services entitling him to seek redress from the first respondent and that the first respondent is also empowered to issue necessary directions to the 2nd respondent incidental to the main relief prayed for by him, such as grant of extension of lien to the 3rd respondent. On behalf of the first respondent it is urged that the action of the 2nd respondent amounted to termination of the services of the 3rd respondent attracting thereby the, provisions of section 3 (1) of the Act, that the first respondent is, therefore, quite competent to redress the grievance of the 3rd respondent and that the direction issued to the first respondent to extend Hen of the 3rd respondent till the academic year 1977-1978 is incidental to the power conferred upon him under the Act.
Amareswari J., held that though there was no order in writing passed by the 2nd respondent terminating the services of the 3rd respondent to duty amounted to termination of the services, that the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent to the first respondent, was certainly competent u/s 4 (a) of the Act, that no order in writing of termination of the services of a teacher employed in a private educational institution was envisaged u/s 4 (a) of the Act, that the first respondent was, therefore, competent to entertain the appeal, and issue the impugned order, that the jurisdiction of the first respondent was not circumscribed by any limitations and that the impugned order passed by the first respondent was well within the competence of the first respondent.
Before us, the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals reiterated the same contentions urged before Amareswari J.'' In order to appreciate the same, it is necessary to notice the provisions of section 3 (1) and Section 4 of the Act included in Chapter II under the head ''Terms and Conditions of Service of Teachers'' and the same may be usefully extracted hereunder:
"3. (1) Subject to any rule that may be made in this behalf, no teacher employed in any private educational institution shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his appointment be otherwise terminated, except with the prior approval of the competent authority:
Provided that if any educational management, agency or institution contravenes the provisions of this sub-section, the teachers affected shall be deemed to be in service."
"4. Any teacher employed in any private educational institution......
(a) Who is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank or whose appointment is otherwise terminated; or
(b) Whose pay or allowances or any of whose conditions of service are altered or interpreted to his disadvantage, by any order;
My prefer an appeal against the order to such authority or officer as may be prescribed; and different authorities or officers may be prescribed for different classes of private educational institutions,
Explanation :- In this section, the expression ''order'' includes any order made on or after the date of the commencement of this Act in any disciplinary proceeding which was pending on that date."
It may be noted that while a right of appeal to the prescribed authority is provided by an aggrieved teacher under circumstances covered by clauses (a) and (b) of Section 4 of the Act, no order, in writing, of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or otherwise termination of the aggrieved teacher is envisaged under Sec. 4(a) of the Act. The words, ''by any order'' following the word ''disadvantage'' and separated by a comma and ending with a semi-colon occurring in clause (b) of Section 4 of the Act, govern the subject matter covered only by clause (c) of the Act and are not referable to the subject matter contained in clause (a) of section 4 of the Act. If the semicolon occuring after the words by any order'' in clause (b) of Sec. 4, had been employed in the place of comma following the word ''disadvantage'' in clause (b) of Section 4, the words ''by any order'' would have governed the subject matter of both clauses (a) and (b) of Section 4. In other words, termination of appointment of a teacher employed in any private educational institution without an order in writing is envisaged u/s 4 (a) of the Act. A right of appeal against such termination is conferred upon the aggrieved teacher. To hold otherwise, would be to place a teacher, whose services are terminated by an order in writing, in a better position then a teacher, whose services are terminated without on order in writing. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions that an aggrieved teacher whose services are terminated without an order in writing, can assail or challenge the termination by way of a suit, if acceded to, would defeat the very object and purpose of Section 4 of the Act enacted by the legislature. There is absolutely do substance in the plea put forward on behalf of the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions that the 3rd respondent voluntarily and of his own accord relinquished the post held be him in the D.N.R, College, Bhimavaram for more than one reason. Firstly, the 3rd respondent did not, in fact, relinquish the post permanently held by him in the D.N.R, College, Bhimavaram. What is more, he applied to the Governing Council of the D.N.R. College, Bhimavaram for sanction of lien over the post held by him for a period of two years and when sanction of lien only for a period of one year was granted, he again sought extension of lien for another year. Secondly, the stand taken by the 2nd respondent, as reflected in his counter filed in W. P. No. 675 of 1978, is that the 3rd respondent ceased to be an employee of the College from 18-7-1976, the date on which the period of lien granted to him expired. It is, therefore, more than clear from the attitude exhibited by the 2nd respondent that the services of the 3rd respondent were terminated on account of his failure to report to duty after the expiry of one year''s period of lien granted to him. Before Amareswari j., it was not disputed that the 1st respondent was the prescribed appellate authority u/s 4 of the Act. The impugned order is, therefore, well within the competence of the first respondent.
Admittedly, no prior approval of the competent authority as required u/s 3 (1) of the Act was obtained before terminating the services of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is, therefore, entitled to invoke the proviso to section 3 (1) of the Act and under the proviso he shall be deemed to be in service, in as much as the services of the 3rd respondent were terminated without the prior approval of the competent authority as requised u/s 3 (1) of the Act. The 3rd respondent aggrieved by the act of the 2nd respondent is entitled to seek necessary redress from the competent authority by making a representation to the competent authority. The competent authority, in such a case, is empowered to pass the declaration envisaged by the proviso and such power is implicitly conferred upon the competent authority. It is not dented that the competent authority envisaged u/s 3 (1) of the Act is the Joint Director of Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh. In this view also, the impugned order is unassailable. The relief of extension of lien grated to the 3rd respondent by the first respondent is incidental to or ancillary to the main relief, the competent authority was empowered to grant.
If, under the proviso to Section 3 (1) of the Act, the 3rd respondent shall be deemed to be in service, his appointment, not having been terminated with the prior approval of the competent authority, neither the petitioner in W. P. No. 2718 of 1978, who is admittedly junior to the 3rd respondent, nor the petitioner in W.P. No. 675 of 1978, a temparary incumbent in the Department of Economics, can complain of any legal injury on account of the impugned order, the principle being ibi jus ibi remedium. The impugned order of the first respondent does not, therefore, call for any interference at the instance of the appellants in the Writ Appeals.
During the course of the arguments, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the Writ Appeals relying upon a copy of G. O. Ms. No. 809 Education (R) Department dated 24th August, 1976, that the first respondent was not the appellate authority u/s 4 of the Act. It may be recalled that before the learned Judge it was not disputed that the first respondent was the prescribed appellate authority u/s 4 of the Act. Even in the memorandam of grounds of appeals preferred by both the appellants, it is not urged that the first respondent is not the appellate authority u/s 4 of the Act. The appellants in the Writ Appeals, in our opinion, should not be permitted to plead for the first time during the course of arguments addressed before authority u/s 4 of the Act. In any event, in the light of the conclusion reached by us on a proper construction of Section 3 of the Act, the impugned order does not suffer from any lack of jurisdiction, as, admittedly, the first respondent is the competent authority prescribed u/s 3 of the Act,
We may also record that the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent did not advisedly press before us the plea, put forward before the learned single Judge, of maintainability of the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants in the Writ Appeals.
In the result, the Writ Appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150/-in each.
Immediately after delivering our judgment in both Writ Appeals, Mr. Y. Suryanarayana and Mr. O. Adinarayana Reddy, made an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, on behalf of the appellants in both the Writ Appeals, against our judgment. It was found by the learned Single Judge that there was in fact termination of the services of 3rd respondent on the admission made by the 2nd respondent. In the light of the said conclusion reached by the learned single judge and affirmed by us, no substantial question of law of general importance requiring decision by the Supreme Court arises in the Writ Appeals. The oral application is, therefore, rejected.