Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from the dismissal of a teacher of Araria Higher Secondary School in Bihar by the school's Managing Committee on February 27, 1958, on a charge of misappropriation of school money. The teacher appealed to the President of the Board of Secondary Education, who by order dated April 22, 1960 set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement with payment of full salary, dearness allowance and increment for the period from suspension to reinstatement, after adjusting amounts already paid. The Managing Committee reinstated the teacher but requested the President to review the matter, especially payment for the suspension period. By order dated February 25, 1961, the President modified the earlier order, restricting the teacher to subsistence allowance for the suspension period. This order was made without giving the teacher any hearing. The teacher made representations, but the President by communication dated January 18, 1964 reiterated that only subsistence allowance was payable and declined to revise. Again no hearing was afforded. The teacher then filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that the President could not modify the earlier order without opportunity of hearing. The High Court, following an earlier Bench decision in Liladhar Jha v. Board of Secondary Education, Patna, held that the President, as appellate authority, had no jurisdiction to order payment of arrears, so the order of April 22, 1960 directing full salary was invalid. Consequently, the High Court treated the challenge to the review order as academic and dismissed the petition. The teacher appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the only relief claimed was against the review order, which was made without hearing and was unconstitutional, and the High Court could not refuse to quash it merely because the earlier beneficial order was invalid. The appellant also referred to Rule 18 and Rule 12(2) of the rules governing service conditions of teachers in non-Government High Schools, and Section 5 of the Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960, to argue that the Managing Committee was bound to obey the Board's orders. The State and Board supported the High Court's reasoning and did not challenge the correctness of Liladhar Jha. The Supreme Court held that on the facts it was incumbent on the High Court to declare invalid the President's review order dated February 25, 1961 and the subsequent order dated January 18, 1964 because they were made without affording the appellant any opportunity of hearing. The Court observed that declining relief on the ground that it would be academic was highly unfair because the review orders remained operative and might deter the Managing Committee from paying arrears. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the High Court order and the President's orders dated February 25, 1961 and January 18, 1964 were set aside, and the parties were relegated to the stage immediately prior to February 25, 1961. The President was directed to dispose of the Managing Committee's request for reconsideration in accordance with law, affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing and of representing his case.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Review of Order Without Hearing - Audi Alteram Partem - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227; Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960, Section 5; Rules 18 and 12(2) - The President of the Board of Secondary Education, after granting full salary for the suspension period by order dated April 22, 1960, reviewed that order on February 25, 1961 and reduced the entitlement to subsistence allowance without affording the appellant any hearing; the subsequent confirmation on January 18, 1964 was also without hearing. Held that the review and confirmation orders were invalid for violation of natural justice and must be set aside, with the matter remitted to the President to reconsider the Managing Committee's request only after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (Paras not mentioned) B) Judicial Review - Writ Remedies - High Court's Refusal to Quash Prejudicial Order as Academic - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - The High Court held the earlier order granting full salary invalid and refused to quash the review order as academic, but the Supreme Court held this unfair because the review order remained operative and could deter the Managing Committee from paying arrears; the court must declare invalid the impugned prejudicial order once breach of natural justice is established, regardless of perceived futility. Held that the High Court's order dismissing the writ petition was erroneous and must be set aside. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the President of the Board of Secondary Education could modify his earlier order dated April 22, 1960, which granted full salary for the suspension period, by order dated February 25, 1961 and letter dated January 18, 1964, without affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard, and whether the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the review order on the ground that the earlier order was invalid and the relief academic.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and the President's orders dated February 25, 1961 and January 18, 1964. The parties were relegated to the stage immediately prior to February 25, 1961, and the President of the Board of Secondary Education was directed to dispose of the Managing Committee's request to reconsider the April 22, 1960 order in accordance with law, affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Law Points
- Natural justice requires hearing before modifying an earlier order prejudicially
- failure invalidates order
- High Court cannot deny relief as academic when impugned prejudicial order remains operative
- President of Board must afford opportunity before reviewing reinstatement order
- rules require compliance by Managing Committee.
