Skip to content


Ramachandra Aided Higher Primary School Society Vs. Joint Director of Public Instructions - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies;Constitution
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. No. 24577 of 1981
Judge
Reported inILR1986KAR4046
ActsKarnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 - Sections 27
AppellantRamachandra Aided Higher Primary School Society
RespondentJoint Director of Public Instructions
Appellant AdvocateH. Subramanya Jois, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateH.L. Dattu, HCGP for R-1 to 3 and ;U.L. Narayana Rao, Adv. for R-4
Excerpt:
.....schools. no provision is made for appointment of an administrator by any authority much less the joint director of public instructions in case there is mismanagement by a school run by a private management.;(b) karnataka societies registration act, 1960 (karnataka act no. 17 of 1960) -- section 27 -- power conferred on government for appointment of administrator in case of mismanagement.;management being a society registered under the act, if its affairs are mismanaged, there is power under section 27 of the act for the government to appoint an administrator. - land acquisition act (1 of 1894)section 6 (1) :[p.d. dinakaran cj & v.g. sabhahit,j] challenge as to acquisition of land - quashing of section 6(1) notification - direction to hear the petitioners as required under section 5a..........till the dispute is settled.'2. it is contended for the petitioner that there is no power in the joint director of public instructions or any other authority to appoint an administrator in such cases. the dispute referred to in the extracted portion is a dispute between members of the society who are all members of the family or related to each other by family connection. in fact, the 4th respondent-ramanatha rao is one such disputant. before dealing with the contention, it would be necessary to state that 4th respondent-ramanatha rao for the purpose of this writ petition is totally unnecessary party. this court cannot under article 226 of the constitution resolve any dispute real or imaginary. the disputants must settle the disputes in the appropriate forum or the civil court which.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.

1. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is running an aided Higher Primary School at a place called 'Bala', Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. It is aggrieved by the memo dated 21st July, 1981, issued by the Joint Director of Public Instructions, Mysore Division, Mysore, who is the 1st respondent in this proceeding. The grievance is confined to the last paragraph of that memo which reads as follows :

'The Managing Committee should be reconstituted as per Rule 14(i) of Grant-in-Aid Code. The Assistant Educational Officer, Mangalore Taluk, is appointed as Administrative Officer of the above School and authorised to draw and disburse salary of the teachers already approved till the dispute is settled.'

2. It is contended for the petitioner that there is no power in the Joint Director of Public Instructions or any other authority to appoint an Administrator in such cases. The dispute referred to in the extracted portion is a dispute between Members of the Society who are all members of the family or related to each other by family connection. In fact, the 4th respondent-Ramanatha Rao is one such disputant. Before dealing with the contention, it would be necessary to state that 4th respondent-Ramanatha Rao for the purpose of this Writ Petition is totally unnecessary party. This Court cannot under Article 226 of the Constitution resolve any dispute real or imaginary. The disputants must settle the disputes in the appropriate forum or the Civil Court which has jurisdiction to entertain such disputes under the Law.

3. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 have entered appearance and produced the records through the Government Pleader and claim that having regard to the mismanagement, the Joint Director of Public Instructions had no option but to make the order in the interest of children. Normally, this Court would welcome such acts and even refer to them as laudable when the Department shows such keen interest in the education of students. But the question is whether the laudable objects ought to be achieved by acts not legally authorised and which affect the constitutional rights of private managements of schools. Article 19(1)(c) read with Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution gives association of persons a right to associate as well as practice profession, occupation, trade or business. That is a right guaranteed as a fundamental right. Sub-article (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution, however, empowers that such right may be controlled and regulated by the State by existing law or making new law. So long as such control and regulation does not impose unreasonable restrictions on that right to practice one's trade, profession etc.

4. In the instant case, it is not disputed that there is no law governing the field. The relationship between the Government and through its Department of education and the petitioner-Society is completely governed by the Karnataka Grant-in-Aid Code for Primary Schools. No provision there also is made for appointment of an Administrator by any authority much less the Joint Director of Public Instructions in case there is mismanagement by a school run by a private management.

5. However, Mr. Dattu, learned Government Pleader, drew my attention to what he claims to be executive order which has delegated the authority of the Government to the Joint Director of Public Instructions to make such appointments whenever necessary in the interest of education. By Order dated 14-10-1970 bearing No. ED 377 DPI 70, the Government of Karnataka appears to have reorganised the Department of Public Instructions and approved the guidelines for the better and more efficient function of the Department by resorting to delegation of power etc. which was approved by the Governor of Karnataka. One of the Annexures empowered the Joint Director of Public Instructions to do certain things in his division. There are as many as 17 paragraphs to that Annexure which is entitled 'functions and powers of the Joint Directors of Public Instructions at Divisional level'. I have carefully gone through all the 17 paragraphs. None of them empower the appointment of an Administrator in place of a private management expressly or impliedly. Mr. Dattu, however, drew my attention to para graph-9 which is as follows :

'9. He shall act as Appellate Authority whenever a dispute arises between the Management of a private high school and the District Deputy Director of Public Instruction in respect of orders passed by the latter, as per the provisions laid down in the Grant-in-Aid Rules.'

6. The thrust of the argument is that there is a dispute as to who represents the management and therefore the joint Director of Public Instructions is authorised to intervene in such disputes and take appropriate measures. That argument really means that the Learned Government Pleader wants to re-write that paragraph. What that paragraph lays down is that the Joint Director of Public Instructions is an appellate authority when there is dispute not between the members of the Society as to who is in charge of the management but when it relates to dispute between the management and the Deputy Director of Public Instructions in respect of an order made by the Deputy Director. That specific conferment of right cannot be generalised to include take over of the administration of me school-management.

7. In that view of the matter, this Court must necessarily hold that the order complained of which is at Annexure-D to the petition in so far as it relates to the appointment of an administrator is quashed as being without the authority of law. It is so quashed. The rest of the order is kept intact.

8. However, I may add by way of observation that the management-the petitioner in this case is a society registered under the Act and if its affairs are mismanaged, there is power under Section 27 of that Act for the Government to appoint an Administrator. The fact that I have quashed the order will not restrain the Government from exerting its power under that Act, if it so desires.

9. I must however observe that mere quashing that portion of the order, as I have done above, will not in any way preclude the Joint Director of Public Instructions to ensure the payments in the form of salaries to its teachers by means other than through those group of persons who claim to be the management. He may make such arrangement without appointing an Administrator.

10. Rule as indicated above. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //