- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Bihar And Others v. Ramdeo Yadav And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Raghunandan Babulal Kanya Middle School, Sukhsan was taken over by the State Government on 13-1-1981 pursuant to a recommendation under Section 3(4) of the Bihar Non-Government Primary Schools (Taking Over Control) Act, 1976 (“the Act”). At the time of takeover, seven teachers and other employees were receiving grants-in-aid. The respondents, Ramdeo Yadav and Raj Narain Yadav, had been appointed as untrained teachers after 1-1-1971 but later completed government-funded training. They filed a writ petition seeking regularisation and recognition as government servants with retrospective effect from 1-1-1971. The Patna High Court, relying on its earlier decision, allowed the writ petition in CWJC No. 1963 of 1995 on 27-7-1993. The State Government appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether teachers appointed after 1-1-1971 who were untrained at the time of their appointment but obtained training later are entitled to be treated as government employees with effect from 1-1-1971 under the Act.
- Whether the High Court could issue a mandamus compelling the State to regularise such teachers despite provisions prohibiting the takeover of untrained staff.
- Whether the Supreme Court may reconsider the High Court’s interpretation of the Act even though no appeal had been filed against an earlier, similar High Court judgment.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments (State Government)
- The distinction in Sections 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) separates employees covered under those provisions from staff of aided schools; until the Government accepts the committee’s recommendation, such employees do not become government servants under Section 4.
- The Government order of 2-5-1980 expressly required that untrained teachers appointed after 1-1-1971 be terminated and not taken over; hence the High Court’s directive violates the Act.
- Even though no earlier appeal was filed, the case raises questions of broader public interest warranting Supreme Court intervention.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Having undergone training at government expense, the respondents should be deemed to have become government employees from 1-1-1971.
- Section 4 of the Act does not differentiate between regularly and irregularly appointed employees; therefore, the High Court’s view is correct.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683 | Court may revisit interpretation of law affecting public interest even if earlier orders were not appealed. | Used to justify Supreme Court’s willingness to reconsider the High Court’s earlier interpretation of the Act. |
| State of W.B. v. Debdas Kumar 1991 Supp (1) SCC 138 | Same principle as above on revisiting unappealed decisions when public interest is involved. | Reinforced the Court’s authority to intervene despite absence of an earlier appeal. |
| J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan (1994) 2 SCC 630 | Mandamus cannot be issued compelling the State to act contrary to statute. | Cited to hold that the High Court erred in directing the Government to regularise unqualified teachers contrary to the Act. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court first accepted that public interest justified revisiting the legal interpretation adopted by the High Court, invoking Digambar and Debdas Kumar. It then examined the statutory framework:
- Sections 1(3), 3(1) and 3(3) automatically made employees of certain categories of schools government servants as of 1-1-1971.
- For aided private schools under Section 3(2), takeover becomes effective only after a Section 3(4) committee recommends and the Government accepts the recommendation.
- The Government’s order dated 2-5-1980 (issued under Section 8) explicitly excluded untrained teachers appointed after 1-1-1971 from takeover and required their termination before any takeover.
- Consequently, Section 4 confers government-employee status only on staff who are qualified and in position when the takeover becomes effective.
- Issuing mandamus to regularise the respondents would compel the State to contravene these statutory provisions, a result barred by the principle laid down in Narinder Mohan.
On this analysis, the Court concluded that the High Court’s order was contrary to law and unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed; the High Court’s judgment is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs were awarded.
Implications: The decision clarifies that untrained teachers appointed after 1-1-1971 in aided schools cannot claim retrospective regularisation merely by subsequent acquisition of training. Government orders excluding such teachers from takeover are legally valid, and courts cannot compel the State to act contrary to express statutory provisions. The ruling reinforces limits on judicial power to issue mandamus in violation of statutory schemes but does not create new precedent beyond interpreting the existing Act.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the counsel on both sides.
3. The admitted facts are that Raghunandan Babulal Kanya Middle School, Sukhsan was taken over by the State Government on 13-1-1981, as a consequence of the recommendation made by the Committee constituted under Section 3(4) of the Bihar Non-Government Primary Schools (Taking Over Control) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). As on that date there were seven persons, who were teachers and other employees to whom grants-in-aid was given. Two candidates, namely, the respondents Ramdeo Yadav and Raj Narain Yadav were untrained teachers appointed after 1-1-1971. They filed the writ petition in the High Court for a direction to regularise their services on the premise that they had completed the training subsequently and that, therefore, they are entitled to be deemed government servants from 1-1-1971. The High Court in CWJC No. 1963 of 1995, dated 27-7-1993 allowed the writ petition following its earlier judgment holding that they must be deemed to have been appointed as on 1-1-1971 and by the date of their taking over, namely, 13-1-1981, they have already completed that training and that, therefore, they shall be regularised as government servants. Calling that order in question, this appeal by special leave has been filed.
4. Shri B.B Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that though an appeal against the earlier order of the High Court has not been filed, since larger public interest is involved in the interpretation given by the High Court following its earlier judgment, the matter requires consideration by this Court. We find force in this contention. In the similar circumstances, this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683 and in State of W.B v. Debdas Kumar 1991 Supp (1) SCC 138, (1991) 17 ATC 261 had held that though an appeal was not filed against an earlier order, when public interest is involved in interpretation of law, the Court is entitled to go into the question.
5. It is then contended that Section 3(2) and (3) make distinction between the employees covered by those provisions and the employees of the aided schools taken over under Section 3(2). Until the taking over by operation of Section 3(4) recommendation is complete, they do not become the employees of the Government under Section 4 of the Act. The Government in exercise of the power under Section 8 constituted a committee and directed to enquire and recommend the feasibility to take over the schools. On the recommendation made by them, the Government have taken decision on 13-1-1981 by which date the respondents were not duly appointed as the employees of the taken over institution. Therefore, the High Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the Government to act in violation of law.
6. On the other hand, Shri Rudreshwar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that though they were temporarily appointed after 1-1-1971, the respondent having been given training at the government expense and completed training, they must be deemed to have been taken over and became government servants w.e.f 1-1-1971. Section 4 of the Act does not make any distinction between employees regularly appointed or employees irregularly appointed and that, therefore, the view taken by the High Court is correct in law.
7*. Having given due consideration to the respective contention, we find that there is force in the contention of Shri B.B Singh. It is seen that by operation of Section 1(3) read with Section 3(1) and (3), the employees of the erstwhile schools managed by the District Board, Zilla Parishad, Municipal Boards, Patna Municipal Corporation became government employees w.e.f 1-1-1971. Similarly, the employees of schools managed by the public or private undertakings taken over by the State Government also became government servants w.e.f the said date.
8. Under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(4), the operation of taking over all the aided elementary schools by the private management committees and handed over voluntarily to the control of the Government would be operative only on the recommendation made by the committee constituted under sub-section (4) of Section 3. Consequentially, only on acceptance of recommendation by the Government, taking over of the school becomes complete and it becomes operative. It would be clear from the language that it is not incumbent upon the Government to either take over the school until it decided to do so, and Government is not bound to accept all the recommendations. As seen the Government exercising the power under Section 8 removing the difficulties have issued orders on 2-5-1980 constituting the committees. In para 2 thereof, the competent persons and in para 7 clause (d) it says that “if any untrained teacher has been appointed in the said school after 1-1-1971, the services of such teacher will not be taken over. It would be the responsibility of the Secretary of the Managing Committee to terminate the services of such teacher prior to the said date”. Consequentially, the operation of the Act, namely, Section 3(2) read with Section 3(4) will be functional only after the report is submitted by the Committee and accepted by the State Government. In terms of the aforesaid orders, any untrained teachers existing prior to the take over are not eligible to be taken over. Section 4 would operate only in respect of the employees qualified and working prior to the taking over. Consequently, the view of the High Court is clearly illegal.
9. It is equally settled law by decisions of this Court in J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr Narinder Mohan (1994) 2 SCC 630, (1994) 27 ATC 56, (1994) 3 Scale 597 that no mandamus would be issued directing the Government to disobey the law.
10. In view of the above interpretation, the view of the High Court, therefore, is clearly illegal and cannot be implemented.
11. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Alert