Statutory recruitment rules prevail over executive instructions, and absence without leave does not trigger automatic termination.

A statutory recruitment scheme governing private aided educational institutions prevails over non-statutory grant-in-aid instructions. Regular teacher appointments made through the prescribed Selection Committee process did not require Head of Department approval where the Rules imposed that approval only for short-term or part-time appointments. The Act and Rules formed a complete code, so executive instructions could not alter or invalidate statutory appointments. The same framework also did not permit automatic cessation of service for absence without leave; termination on that ground had to follow the statutory procedure and principles of natural justice. In the absence of express authority for deemed termination, such service cessation was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether approval of the Head of the Department was required for a regular appointment of a teacher under the statutory scheme and whether the non-statutory grant-in-aid instructions could invalidate such appointment. (ii) Whether absence without leave resulted in automatic termination of service in the absence of any statutory provision authorising such termination.

Issue (i): Whether approval of the Head of the Department was required for a regular appointment of a teacher under the statutory scheme and whether the non-statutory grant-in-aid instructions could invalidate such appointment.

Analysis: The statutory framework governing private aided educational institutions prescribed the method of recruitment through a Selection Committee constituted under the Rules. The recruitment rule drew a distinction between regular appointments and short-term or part-time appointments, requiring approval only for the latter category. The statutory Act and Rules formed a complete code on appointment and conditions of service, and there was no power to supplement them by executive instructions. The grant-in-aid code was only administrative in character and could regulate financial assistance, but could not override or modify the statutory recruitment provisions.

Conclusion: Approval of the Head of the Department was not required for the regular appointments in question, and the non-statutory grant-in-aid instructions could not invalidate those appointments.

Issue (ii): Whether absence without leave resulted in automatic termination of service in the absence of any statutory provision authorising such termination.

Analysis: The Act and the Rules contained provisions for termination and disciplinary action, but they did not provide for automatic cessation of service merely because a teacher remained absent without leave. Any termination on that ground had to conform to the statutory procedure and the principles of natural justice. In the absence of such a provision, the alleged deemed termination could not be sustained.

Conclusion: There was no automatic termination of service on account of absence without leave, and the management's action was unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The statutory recruitment scheme governed the appointments, the executive grant-in-aid instructions could not defeat that scheme, and the alleged cessation of service without due process was unsustainable; the teachers were entitled to consequential relief in the form directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute and the rules framed under it constitute a complete code on recruitment and service conditions, administrative instructions cannot add to or override them, and service cannot be terminated automatically unless the statute expressly so provides and due process is followed.

---