1. Shri Datar for Shri Srinivasa Anand for the appellant and Sri Vijay for Respondent-1 and Shri Jagannatha Rao for Respondent-2 submitted that the appeal itself may be heard finally on merits. Accordingly, the appeal is heard on merits.
2. This is an appeal by defendant 2 against the order dated 9-7-1985 passed by the X Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Original Suit No. 10456 of 1985 allowing I.A. No. 1 and dismissing I.A.No. III and making the temporary injunction absolute.
3. The plaintiff's case is as under :
Defendant-1 is the Management of the Goodwill Girls' High School and defendant-2 is the Principal of the said School. The said High School is an aided institution and is receiving grant from the Government. This is an institution run by the Church of South India, Karnataka Central Diocese.
In pursuance of the advertisement calling for applications for the post of Assistant Teacher for Mathematics, the plaintiff also had applied. She was interviewed by the Committee and was orally informed by the Chairman of the Committee that she had bean selected. On the basis of that oral communication, the plaintiff filed a suit earlier against defendant-1 praying that she may be appointed as a Teacher in the School. Although defendant-1 supported the plaintiff's case, still the suit was dismissed on the ground that there was no order of appointment in writing issued by the management in favour of the plaintiff. However, certain observations were made in that case bearing in mind the interest of the students studying in the School. Defendant-1 Management subsequently issued an order dated 6-6-1985 appointing the plaintiff as an Assistant Teacher. After the receipt of the said order, the plaintiff reported for duty before defendant-2 on 19-6-1985. Defendant-2 instead of assigning the work to the plaintiff, has issued a letter stating as :
'Since I have requested the Chairman for the copy of the Court order which be has mentioned in his letter dated 6th June and delivered by hand on 10th June at 10-30 A.M. you will kindly wait till then, so that I can read the same and take necessary action.'
Even thereafter, defendant-2 did not assign any work to her. Hence the suit fur declaration and injunction
4. The plaintiff filed I.A.No. I under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking the following relief : -
'For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, she prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd defendant to assign teaching work in Goodwill Girls High School, Bangalore, forthwith to her pursuant to the appointment order dated 6-6-1985, issued by the 1st defendant, pending disposal of the above case by way of interim exparte mandatory injunction in the interest of justice.'
5. Dafendant-2 Principal of the High School resisted the suit as well as the grant of temporary injunction.
6. Defendant-1 Management has broadly supported the plaintiff's case.
7. According to defendant-2, the plaintiff is not properly appointed as a Teacher at all and thus the question of assigning any work to her does not arise.
8. According to defendant-2. there is a Revised Constitution for the Management of Aided Educational Institutions in the Karnataka Central Diocese. (IV) thereof reads as :-
The Management of the School Shall be controlled by the Diocese through a Managing Committee which shall be composed as follows : --
Composition of the Committee
Head of the Institution-
One member of Staff - electedby the staff ...
Area Chairman or his nominee...
Members elected by EducationCommittee ...
Representative from thelocal Church ...
Co-opted members ...
Rule 4(b) says that all other appointments shall be made by the Management Committee in accordance with provision of the Grant-in-Aid Code. Rule 7(a)(1) lays down the duties of the Chairman of the Management Committee. Rule 7(d) lays down the duties of the Principal as the Head of the School as :--
'(1) He shall be the Manager and Correspondent of the School and shall comply with and enforce service regulations and bye-laws and observe such other regulations as the Grant-in-aid Code and conditions of recognition warrant.
(2) As the Chief Executive Officer of the Committee he shall follow the policy of the Diocese and instructions of the Managing Committee to fulfil the aims and objects of the School; in all administrative matters and shall be directly responsible to the Committee.
(3) He shall be responsible for maintaining a high standard of efficiency and for taking all possible measures for effective supervision of work and to guide the work of the teachers to that end.
(4) He can recommend suspension of teachers for insubordination, neglect of duty, indiscipline etc., and report the matter to the Committee for necessary action.
(5) He can frame roles and regulations in keeping with the general rules and bye-laws for maintaining efficiency, discipline and ensuring punctuality and enforcing payment of fees in time etc.
(6) He is empowered to incur expenditure within the sanctioned budget.
NOTE :- Where extra expenses are involved he should consult the Management Committee'
Rule 7(b)(5) which deals with the duties of the Principal or Manager (as Secretary) reads as :-
'He shall communicate decisions of the meeting to persons concerned or mentioned above.'
9. As required by Rule 4(b), all other appointments shall be made by the Management Committee in accordance with provision of the Grant-in-Aid Code. Therefore, the appointment shall have to be made by the Management Committee. A copy of the order of appointment has been produced before me to-day. It purports to read that it is the Chairman that has issued the order of appointment. There is nothing in it to indicate that the Management-Committee has made the appointment and that too in accordance with the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code. Therefore, a serious question arises in this case as to whether the order of appointment issued by the Chairman is in accordance with the rules, regulations and law.
10. The relief sought for in I.A. No. 1 is that defendant-2-Principal should be directed to assign the teaching work to her. As to what work should be assigned to a teacher, is the exclusive privilege of the Principal. As to whether any work should be entrusted to a teacher or not, is the exclusive privilege of the Principal or the Head Mistress. The Chairman cannot interfere with the discretion or the privilege or right of the Principal. There is nothing in the rules to indicate that the Management or the Chairman can direct the Principal to assign the work to any teacher or assign a particular work to a particular teacher.
11. Rule 7(d)(2) reads as :--
'As the Chief Executive Officer of the Committee he shall follow the policy of the Diocese and instructions of the Managing Committee to fulfil the aims and objects of the school ; in all administrative matters and shall be directly responsible to the Committee.'
As the Chief Executive Officer, the Principal is bound by the policy of the Diocese and instructions issued by the Managing Committee. But even the Chairman without consulting the Management Committee or without the resolution of the Management Committee, cannot direct and has DO power to direct the Principal to do a particular act.
12. The learned Counsel Shri Jagannatha Rao for Respondent No. 2 submitted that atleast on humanitarian grounds, the plaintiff should be assigned some work. The question of any humanitarian ground does not at all arise in the present case. If the parents of the students are not satisfied with the functioning of the School, they are at liberty to take any decision which they think to be in the interest of their wards i.e. students.
13. The Learned Counsel Shri Jagannatha Rao submitted that the plaintiff thinking that she had been appointed as a teacher, had not sought for any other appointment and that she had been waiting all the while. It is a matter which is to be left to her discretion. She alone is the best person to decide as to whether she should wait or not. The Court need not consider it.
14. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Court below is capricious, perverse and unfair. The Court should not normally interfere with the discretion of the Principal in assigning the work. If the Principal feels that the work should not be assigned to a particular teacher, the Court should not use its machinery to compel the Principal to assign the work to a particular person. Therefore, in the circumstances, the order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained at all and it is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
15. Respondent-1 should pay the costs of the appellant in this appeal and should bear her own.