IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5688 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.16922 of 2006)
Gwalior Mahila Mandal ... Appellant (s)
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. ... Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant is a society running several educational
institutions, one of which is a Mahila Mandal Higher
Secondary School at Danaoli. The third respondent claims to
be the only recognized Upper Division Teacher in the said
school.
3. On the retirement of an earlier Principal of the
School (Uma Gadvekar), the appellant by letter dated
29.6.2004, sought a clarification from the District
Education Officer, as to whether the third respondent being
2
the senior most teacher amongst the recognized staff should
be appointed to the post of Principal. The District
Education Officer sent a reply on 20.7.2004 stating that
after 4.1.2000 the State Government was neither filling up
the vacant posts in non-governmental institutions nor
providing grant for the posts that were filled up and the
institution may do so and bear the cost of running the
institution. The District Education Officer, however,
suggested that the third respondent may be permitted to
work as In-charge Principal.
4. The appellant accordingly posted the third respondent
as In-charge Principal on 21.7.2004. Thereafter the
appellant transferred and posted the fourth respondent as
regular Principal of Higher Secondary School, Danaoli, vide
order dated 3.8.2004. The fourth respondent was earlier
working as Principal of the Higher Secondary School run by
the appellant at Kherapati.
5. The third respondent being aggrieved by the posting of
fourth respondent as the Principal by order dated 3.8.2004
filed Writ Petition No.291 of 2005 seeking the following
two reliefs : (a) to quash the order dated 3.8.2004
appointing the fourth respondent as the Principal; and (b)
to direct the appellant to appoint her as the In-charge
3
Principal of the School. There was no other prayer in the
writ petition.
6. A learned Single Judge of the MP High Court allowed
the petition by order dated 10.2.2006 and quashed the order
dated 3.8.2004 appointing the fourth respondent as
Principal of the Danaoli School. He also directed that till
a regular appointment was made to the post of Principal,
the third respondent may be permitted to serve as In-charge
Principal. The appeal filed by the appellant against the
said order was dismissed by a Division Bench by order dated
30.8.2006. The present appeal is filed challenging the said
order of the Division Bench.
7. Two subsequent developments have made it unnecessary
to consider this appeal on merits. The first is that the
fourth respondent who was appointed as Principal by the
appellant and whose appointment was quashed by the High
Court has left the service of the appellant and is no
longer the Principal. It is stated that thereafter one Ajay
Upadhya, a Lecturer working in an other institution run by
the appellant, was transferred and posted as the Principal
of the Danaoli School and he has also left the service of
the appellant. According to the third respondent, one
Radhika Neema another Lecturer from one of the other
4
institutions of the appellant is presently the In-charge
Principal of the Danaoli School.
8. The second development is in regard to the grant in
aid. Earlier, out of the 55 teaching staff of the
Appellant, grant was being extended only in respect of two
posts, that is the post of Principal and one post of Upper
Division Teacher occupied by the third respondent. We are
informed that on the retirement of Uma Gadvekar, the post
of Principal also became a non-grant post. At present only
the post occupied by third respondent as a recognized
teacher is a post covered by the block grant. The fact that
other teachers are not recognized does not mean that their
appointments are illegal or irregular. It is stated that
recognition and grant was linked and there is no need for
recognition in regard to teachers appointed non-grant
posts. The appellant claims that it has already written to
the Department to stop the block grant which is being
extended with reference to only one teaching post, so that
it can become an unaided institution.
9. As noticed above, the High Court has granted two
reliefs. As far as the first relief, which was the main
relief, it has now become infructuous as the fourth
respondent is no longer in service. In so far as the second
5
relief, what is prayed and what is granted is that the
third respondent should be permitted to work as an In-
charge Principal until a regular Principal was appointed.
As noticed above, there was no prayer in the writ petition
that the third respondent should be appointed as a regular
Principal.
10. In regard to the second relief, on the facts and
circumstances, we find no need to interfere with the
direction of the High Court that the third respondent
should be permitted to serve as In-charge Principal as she
is the seniormost and only recognized teacher until the
appellant appointed a regular Principal in accordance with
the Rules. We are informed that in pursuance of the order
of the learned Single Judge, the third respondent was in
fact appointed as In-charge Principal on 12.9.2006. When
the order of the High Court was stayed, the appellant
posted someone else to work as Principal. As the present
incumbent Radhika Neema is said to be only an In-charge
Principal, as per the direction of High Court, third
Respondent should be permitted to serve as In-charge
Principal till a regular Principal is appointed.
11. But the applicability of the provisions of the Madhya
Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Pradaya)
6
Adhiniyam, 1978 and the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan
Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ki Bharti)
Niyam, 1979 would depend upon the fact whether it continues
as an aided institution or unaided institution. The
appellant may decide whether it wants to continue as an
aided institution or whether it wants to be an unaided
institution and take consequential action for appointment
of a regular Principal. If it becomes an unaided
institution, obviously the Act or the Rules regulating
appointment will not apply, subject to fulfilment of the
prescribed minimum qualifications. The appeal is
accordingly disposed of, without expressing any opinion on
merits.
12. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted
that even though the third respondent has been working in
the Danaoli School continuously, she has not been paid the
salary from November, 2004. The appellant may also look
into this aspect and if she has been working in the School
and has not been paid salary, take steps to release her
salary, if there is no legal impediment.
…………………………….J
[R. V. Raveendran]
7
……………………………..J
[Lokeshwar Singh Panta]
New Delhi;
September 16, 2008.