Enquiry may especially directed to the question whether the State of Madras, or the state of Mysore, have on any earlier occasion enforced the orders passed by the Educational authorities in appeals and the power in exercise of which they have been enforced.
Against that decree a Second Appeal was preferred to the High Court of Mysore.
after reorganization of States, that of the Mysore Government.
A further appeal by her before the Divisional Inspector of Schools, Coimbatore, succeeded and the Divisional Inspector directed the management to restore her to her original position as the Head Mistress.
The High Court reversed the decree passed by the District Court and ordered that the appellants suit do stand dismissed.
She thereafter filed an appeal against the management before the District Educational Officer, South Kanara.
A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Chandrasekharan Nair and others v. Secretary to Govt.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Jalli Venkatswamy V. The Correspondent, Kasturiba Gandhi Basic Senior School kenetipuram 3 was apparently of the view that these rules had statutory operation.
In appeal the District Court reserved the Judgment passed by the Trial Court and decreed the appellants suit and issued a mandatory injunction directing the Management of the School to reinstate the appellant as Head Mistress of the School.
235 of 1960.
By s. 56 the State Government was authorized to make rules number inconsistent with the Act to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act, and by sub s. 2 of s. 56 it was provided In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions they may make rules f laying down the registers, statements, reports, returns, budgets and other information to be maintained or furnished by local authorities, by panchayats, and by managers of elementary schools under private management and the time within which any statement, report, return, budget or other information shall be furnished h declaring the companyditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid.
They companytended that they were number bound by the Madras Elementary Education Act or the rules framed thereunder that the Manager alone was responsible for the efficiency, strength and progress of the school and for the internal discipline, which were all matters left to his discretion and the Management companyld number be companypelled to reinstate the appellant as Head Mistress when she did number companymand their companyfidence.
But numbereffect was given to that order by the Management.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 27, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Second Appeal No.
In an appeal against that dismissal, the District Judge took a different view and held that the order of the Department was legally enforceable by the appellant since it was passed in an appeal provided by the said rules.
Rules were framed under the Act for the first time by the Govt.
Joseph v. Kerala 1 it is possible to, trace the charges which the Act and the rules have undergone from time to time.
The High Court held that the rules were, number statutory , rules, and that therefore.
The judgment of the Court after receipt of the report was delivered by Shelat, J. Prior to June 1, 1955, the appellant was working as the Head Mistress in the respondent school.
A. I. R. 1961 A. P. 178.
Such a legislative, history of the Act is important to a certain extent as it throws light on the character of the rules and the power under which they were framed from time to time.
It was the appellants case that the school was receiving grantin aid from the Government of Madras and was subject to the supervision and companytrol of the Education Department of the Government of Madras, and since the reorganization of the States, of the Mysore Government of the affairs of the school, said the appellant, were companyducted according to the rules and regulations framed by the Government and embodied in the rules relating to the elementary schools framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act, 1920, and on that account the order passed by the Manager removing her from the post of Head Mistress stood vacated, and refusal of the Manager to reinstate her was illegal, because the Manager was bound by rr.
Against this judgment, the appellant obtained special leave from this Court and filed this appeal.
Against that order this appeal is preferred with special leave.
He set aside the dismissal of the suit and passed a decree in favour of the appellant.
13 14 framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act to obey the order passed by the Divisional Inspector of Schools on an appeal preferred by her.
500 of 1966.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On a second appeal by the school, the High Court went into the legislative history of the Act and on an examination of the rules accepted the companytention of the management that the relations hip between the parties was that of master and servant and numbermandatory injunction companyld be issued directing restoration of the appellant as the Head Mistress as that would be tantamount to specific performance of a companytract of personal service number permissible under s. 21 b of Specific Relief Act, 1877.
R. L. Iyengar and E. C. Agrawala, for the appellant.
of Kerala and others, 1 approving their earlier judgment in Joseph Valamangalam v. State of Kerala 1 held that the rules companytained in Part II headed Rules for grant of recognition and aid to Elementary Schools framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act, 1920, were mere executive directions having numberstatutory authority.
Her appeal to the District Educational Officer, South Kanara, against the action of the Manager was rejected.
The suit was resisted by the Management.
On June 26, 1957, the appellant filed the suit out of which this appeal arises claiming a, mandatory injunction directing the Management of the School to reinstate her to the post of Head Mistress and damages for loss resulting from the wrongful action of the Management.
The Trial Court held that the appellant was number entitled to claim reinstatement as Head Mistress, because the action of the Management removing the appellants from the post of Head Mistress was number illegal.
Her reply was found to be unsatisfactory, and thereupon, by an order passed by the management on June 1, 1955 she was reduced to the position of an Assistant Teacher.
The Judgment of the Court calling for a report was delivered by Shah, J. The appellant was appointed on April 10, 1949, HeadMistress of St. Aloysius Higher Elementary School, Urva then in State of Madras.
From those materials as also from the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in Rev. Fr.
Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent.
On June 1, 1955, the Manager of the School reduced her to the post of an Assistant Teacher.
The High Court also held that the rules, under which the appellant had filed the said appeal and the said order was made, were only administrative instructions by the Government to its educational officers and number statutory rules which would give rise to a remedy enforceable at law at the instance of an employee of a school aggrieved against its management.
The Trial Court to submit the report within six months from the date on which the papers reach that Court.
In second appeal, the Divisional Inspector of Schools, Coimbatore, by order dated July 5, 1956, allowed the appeal and directed the District Educational Officer to issue instructions to the Management of the School to reinstate the appellant as Head Mistress.
The suit was on the basis that since the school had obtained recognition and grant in aid under the Madras Elementary Education Act, VIII of 1920, and the rules made therefore by the Government, it was under the supervision,first of the Education Department of the Madras Government,and.
According to her, the Act and the said rules were binding on the school and gave her a right to enforce against the management the said order of the Divisional Inspector.
The High Court of Madras in A. Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of Madras Education Department 1 held that the rules were administrative and number statutory in their effect, and the management companyld dispense with the services of its employee a teacher after giving three months numberice in the usual companyrse, without assigning any special reason, and the employee companyld number invoke the aid of the Court for an order to quash the proceedings of the management dispensing with his services on the ground of number compliance with those rules.
The Trial Court accepted the schools companytention and dismis sed the suit.
The order reducing, her to the position of an assistant teacher stood vacated by the order of the Divisional Inspector and the respondent school, therefore, was bound to companyply with that order and restore her to the position of the Head Mistress, The management companytested the suit, maintaining that the order of reduction passed by it was within its power, that there was numberhing in the Act or the rules which warranted any interference with its right of internal management of the school and gave numberright to the appellant to enforce in, a companyrt of law the order passed by the Divisional Inspector, that order being only a matter between the Education Department and the management.
Her appeal was rejected.
On April 22, 1955, the management of the School served certain charges on her and called upon her to reply to the same.
report along with a companyy of the rules, the Madras Gazette in which they were published and certain other materials.
The appeal first came up for hearing in March 1970 before Shah, J. as he then was and Grover, J. Not satisfied with the record before them, the learned Judges postponed the hearing of the appeal and called for a report from the Trial Court on certain matters found wanting in the record, In accordance with that order, the Trial Court took additional evidence, both oral and documentary, and dispatched its.
The management declined to do so and she filed the suit from which this appeal arises.
A. I. R. 1961 Kerala 303.
It is unfortunate that companynsel have number been able to place before us the Act, and the rules in force at the material time.
