1966 (9) TMI 149 - SC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses appeals, upholds decision on termination authority under Assam Education Act.

State of Assam Etc. Versus Kripanath Sarma & Ors. Etc.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the Assistant Secretary lacked the authority to terminate the services of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Authority to terminate services under the Assam Elementary Education Act, 1962.2. Applicability of Section 18 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915.3. Validity of termination orders issued by the Assistant Secretary.4. Whether the respondent teachers held civil posts under the State and applicability of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. Authority to terminate services under the Assam Elementary Education Act, 1962:The Assam Elementary Education Act, 1962 (the Act) replaced the Assam Basic Education Act, 1954, and established the State Board for Elementary Education. Section 14(3)(iii) of the Act empowered Deputy Inspectors of Schools, as Assistant Secretaries of the State Board, to appoint teachers in recognized schools on the advice of a Committee constituted under Section 16. The Act also provided for the takeover of teachers and employees from the School Boards by the State Board under Section 34(2), ensuring protection of their emoluments and seniority.2. Applicability of Section 18 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915:The appellants argued that under Section 18 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915, the power to appoint included the power to suspend or dismiss. However, the Court concluded that this provision applied only to those appointed by the Assistant Secretary under the Act. Since the teachers in question were appointed by the School Boards before the Act came into force, the Assistant Secretary did not have the authority to dismiss them under Section 14(3)(iii) of the Act read with Section 18 of the 1915 Act.3. Validity of termination orders issued by the Assistant Secretary:The termination orders issued by the Assistant Secretary were deemed invalid. The Court held that the Assistant Secretary could not dismiss teachers appointed before the Act came into force, as they were not appointed by him. The Court also noted that the resolution of November 20, 1962, by the State Advisory Board, which called for the discharge of non-matriculate or non-T.T. teachers, did not amount to an order terminating services but was merely a policy guideline. The actual termination letters, issued between April and September 1963, were not backed by proper authority and thus invalid.4. Whether the respondent teachers held civil posts under the State and applicability of Article 311(2) of the Constitution:The High Court did not decide on whether the respondent teachers held civil posts under the State and whether Article 311(2) of the Constitution applied to them. The Court focused on the lack of authority of the Assistant Secretary to terminate the services. The argument that the State Board had the power to terminate services was also rejected as the termination orders were not issued by the State Board but by the Assistant Secretary, who lacked the authority to do so.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision that the Assistant Secretary did not have the authority to terminate the services of the respondent teachers. The termination orders were invalid as they were not issued by the State Board, the proper authority under the Act. The resolution of November 20, 1962, was a policy guideline and not an order of termination. The Court emphasized the necessity of proper authority and procedure in terminating services under the statutory framework.