2001 (9) TMI 1137 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of approval for the appointment of teachers.
2. Validity of appointments without approval under non-statutory rules.
3. Status of teachers appointed on probation post-probation period.
4. Automatic termination of service due to absence without leave.
5. Entitlement to arrears of salary.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Approval for Appointment of Teachers:
The primary issue was whether the Management needed to obtain approval from the Head of the Department for appointing teachers. The Supreme Court examined Section 3 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975, and Rule 6 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978. It was concluded that "there is no requirement for Management to take any approval from the Head of the Department who is the Director of Public Instructions, in respect of regular appointment of a teacher selected by the Selection Committee constituted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules." The rules explicitly required approval only for ad hoc or part-time appointments.

2. Validity of Appointments Without Approval Under Non-Statutory Rules:
The respondent argued that non-statutory Rule 16 of the Grant-in-Aid Code for Secondary Schools required such approval. However, the Court held that "the appointment and conditions of service of teachers in private government aided institution are governed by the provisions of the Act and the statutory rules." Since the Act did not empower the State Government to supplement the rules with administrative instructions, the non-statutory Rule 16 could not invalidate the appointments. The Court noted, "breach of non-statutory Rule 16 would not render the appointments of appellant invalid."

3. Status of Teachers Appointed on Probation Post-Probation Period:
The appellants argued that they automatically became regular teachers after completing their probationary period. The Court did not delve deeply into this issue, stating, "we are not inclined to go into that question in view of the fact that even though the appellants were probationers, their services could not be ceased to have effect either by non-approval by the Head of the Department or by their remaining absent from their respective duties."

4. Automatic Termination of Service Due to Absence Without Leave:
The Management claimed that the appellants' services were automatically terminated due to their absence. The Court found no provision in the Act or Rules for automatic termination due to absence without leave, stating, "If any teacher remains absent without any leave, it is open to the Management to terminate the services of such teachers only after complying with the provisions of the Act and the rules or principles of natural justice." Therefore, the alleged automatic termination was deemed unlawful.

5. Entitlement to Arrears of Salary:
The Court addressed the issue of salary arrears, noting the appellants' failure to raise grievances about non-payment over ten years. It concluded, "they are not entitled to arrears of salary for the last ten years," but granted arrears for the last three years. The Court also directed that "arrears of salary to the appellants shall be paid by the Management from its own funds and not from the financial assistance received from the Government" due to the Management's wrongful actions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and ordered the reinstatement of the appellants with arrears of salary for the last three years, to be paid by the Management from its own funds. The Court emphasized adherence to statutory provisions over non-statutory administrative instructions.