Statutory protection against dismissal prevails over contractual termination clauses; aided schools and statutory authorities remain open to writ review.

A contractual termination clause in an aided school could not override a mandatory statutory safeguard requiring a disciplinary inquiry before dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. The terminations were treated as punitive, following an abandoned inquiry and a change in management, and were held to be mala fide, colourable and void. The aided school and the statutory authorities were also held amenable to writ jurisdiction because the authorities acted quasi-judicially under the statute and the school was subject to substantial State funding and pervasive control. The impugned termination orders and adverse decisions were set aside, with reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the termination of service of employees of an aided school, purportedly under the terms of an agreement with the management, could override the mandatory protection and inquiry requirement under the governing service statute; (ii) whether the aided school and the statutory authorities acting under the service statute were amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the termination of service of employees of an aided school, purportedly under the terms of an agreement with the management, could override the mandatory protection and inquiry requirement under the governing service statute.

Analysis: The governing statute protected employees of aided schools and required a disciplinary inquiry before dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank. A contractual term enabling termination on notice could not be used to defeat a mandatory statutory safeguard. The circumstances showed that a disciplinary inquiry had been initiated and then abandoned, and the impugned orders were passed after a change in management, indicating that the terminations were punitive in character and a colourable exercise of power. The Court held that the agreements could not prevail over the statute and that the terminations were mala fide and void.

Conclusion: The terminations were invalid, being in derogation of the statute and vitiated by mala fide and colourable exercise of power.

Issue (ii): Whether the aided school and the statutory authorities acting under the service statute were amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner were statutory quasi-judicial authorities under the service statute and were subject to judicial review. The aided school was substantially financed by the State and subject to pervasive statutory and administrative control, bringing it within the reach of constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the High Court erred in refusing relief on the premise that the school was not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The aided school and the statutory authorities were amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The orders terminating service and the adverse decisions of the statutory and High Court authorities were set aside, and reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual termination clause cannot be enforced to defeat a mandatory statutory protection against dismissal or removal, and an aided institution subject to deep State control and statutory regulation is amenable to constitutional writ review, including review of statutory quasi-judicial authorities.

---