1. This is an application for the issue of a writ, by the petitioner who was formerly the assistant Headmaster, Bhakta-madhu Bidyapitha, Cuttack. His case is that he was originally serving as Teacher in the Muslim. Seminary, Cuttack, that he was persuaded to resign his post there and was appointed as the assistant Headmaster of Bhakatamadhu Bidhyapitha on 1-2-44 on the definite expectation that he would be retained in that service permanently. He complains that by a resolution of the Managing Committee of the School, dated 9.7.1950, his services were suddenly dispensed with on the ground of retrenchment and that the appeal filed by him against that order of the Managing Committee was ultimately dismissed by the Director of Public Instruction, Orissa, though the Inspector of School, Northern Division, repotted in his favour, that the Managing Committed once again reaffirmed by another resolution dated the 5th August, 1951, that his services should be dispensed with and that he was ultimately obliged illegally to get out of his job on the 24th October 1951. He urges that the two Managing Committees which passed the resolution for his discharge on 9-7-1950 and 5-8-1951, were illegally constituted and that they had no power to dicharge him from service and that on the merits the termination of his service was erroneous and 'mala fide.'
To make out the above contentions, the petitioner who appeared and argued his case before us, in person, placed before us a good deal of correspondence and other papers. He relied upon various provisions of the Bihar Education Code to show that the Managing Committee of the School on both the relevant dates was not properly constituted and that in retrenching him, the rules of the said Code were violated. The question, however, before us is whether the petitioner has made out any legal right and whether he has shown that the Managing Committee was illegally constituted or acted in violation of any statutory duty imposed upon them.
The references to the various provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Education Code, either as regards the constitution of the committee and the rules relating to retrenchment and supersession etc., can be of no avail to the petitioner, unless it is shown that the said rules have any statutory force or have otherwise the force of law. It appears, however, to us quite clearly that all the rules in the Bihar and Orissa Education Code are merely departmental regulations which do not create any statutory or legally binding rights and duties. They do not derive their validity by virtue of any legislative sanction. This is clear from the very preface to the Bihar and Orissa Education Code, which is as follows :
'The Bihar and Orissa Education Code is compiled in the office of the Director of Public Instruction, Bihar and Orissa, and is issued under his authority.'
We have been shown nothing to persuade us to think that these rules have the force of law. It is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the merits of the petitioner's grievances. Whether or not he has any remedy by way of a regular suit for damages or otherwise, we are not called upon to say.
2. This application must accordingly be rejected, but without costs.
3. I agree.