1964 (10) TMI 104 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Statutory force of the Rules.
2. Authority of the Director to interfere with the Governing Body's decisions.
3. Right of the respondent to challenge the Rules.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs against the State and the Governing Body of the College.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Statutory force of the Rules:
The High Court initially considered whether the Rules regarding the Conduct and Discipline of Employees of Aided Educational Institutions had statutory force. It concluded that the Rules could not be said to be issued under the proviso to s. 21(g) of the Gauhati University Act and therefore did not have statutory force. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, noting that the Rules were mere executive instructions and not statutory rules. The Rules were framed in consultation with the University and the Assam College Teachers' Association and were accepted by the Governing Body of the College. However, they were not issued under any statutory provision and thus lacked statutory force.

2. Authority of the Director to interfere with the Governing Body's decisions:
The respondent argued that the Director had no authority to interfere with the Governing Body's resolution allowing him to rejoin his duties. The High Court found that the Director's letter of March 20, 1962, which disapproved the Governing Body's resolution, was based on Rules that had no statutory force. Therefore, the Director had no authority to enforce these Rules. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the Director's instructions were mere administrative guidelines and did not have the force of law to bind the Governing Body's decisions.

3. Right of the respondent to challenge the Rules:
The respondent contended that the Rules did not affect the powers of the Governing Body and that he was entitled to leave under the Rules framed by the Gauhati University. The Supreme Court held that since the Rules were mere executive instructions, they conferred no rights on the teachers of private colleges. The teachers, including the respondent, could not challenge the Rules or seek their enforcement or non-enforcement through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that such administrative instructions were matters between the private colleges and the government concerning grant-in-aid and did not create enforceable rights for the teachers.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs against the State and the Governing Body of the College:
The High Court issued a writ of mandamus to the State through the Director, directing it not to give effect to the letter of March 20, 1962. The Supreme Court found this to be erroneous, as the Rules were mere executive instructions without statutory force. The Court stated that the High Court should not have interfered with the administrative instructions issued by the Director. Regarding the writ against the Governing Body of the College, the Supreme Court noted that there was no appeal by the College against the High Court's order. Therefore, it did not interfere with the High Court's order in this respect but clarified that it did not approve of such orders in similar circumstances.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order granting a writ against the State through the Director. The Court emphasized that the Rules in question were mere administrative instructions and did not have statutory force, thereby conferring no enforceable rights on the teachers. The appeal was allowed, and no order as to costs was passed.