Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tukaram Pandurang Matekar, was the original plaintiff. He was a graduate holding an S.T.C. Diploma and was appointed as a trained teacher in Sant Tukaram High School, Karad. The school was a grant-in-aid school. The appellant filed a civil suit alleging that his appointment was terminated in violation of the government directives contained in the Government Resolution under the Grant-in-Aid Code. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court. The appellant then filed a second appeal in the Bombay High Court. The High Court admitted the appeal on 1st August 1989, framing two substantial questions of law: (1) whether violation of government directives under the Grant-in-Aid Code can give rise to a civil suit by a person whose civil and legal rights are infringed; and (2) whether the Government Resolution and Notifications issued for regularising the Grant-in-Aid Code are merely administrative orders or binding directions. The court heard the learned counsel for both parties. The judgment is oral and was delivered on 23rd March 2005 by Justice A.S. Oka. The court held that violation of government directives can give rise to a civil suit and that the Government Resolution and Notifications are not mere administrative orders but binding directions. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Suit - Violation of Government Directives - Whether violation of government directives under Grant-in-Aid Code can give rise to a civil suit - The court considered whether a person whose civil and legal rights are infringed by violation of government directives can file a civil suit - Held that such violation can give rise to a civil suit (Paras 1-2).
B) Administrative Law - Binding Nature of Government Resolutions - Government Resolution and Notifications under Grant-in-Aid Code - Whether Government Resolution and Notifications are mere administrative orders or binding directions - The court examined whether Government Resolution and Notifications issued for regularising Grant-in-Aid Code are merely administrative orders or binding directions - Held that they are not mere administrative orders but binding directions (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether violation of government directives given in the Government Resolution under Grant-in-Aid Code can give rise to file a civil suit by a person whose civil and legal rights are infringed as a result of such violation; and whether Government Resolution and Government Notifications issued for regularising Grant-in-Aid Code is merely an administrative order or a direction to the parties for obeying the same or can be treated as mere administrative orders and guidelines.
Final Decision
Second Appeal allowed. The court held that violation of government directives under Grant-in-Aid Code can give rise to a civil suit and that Government Resolution and Notifications are not mere administrative orders but binding directions.
Law Points
- Violation of government directives under Grant-in-Aid Code can give rise to a civil suit
- Government Resolutions and Notifications for regularising Grant-in-Aid Code are not mere administrative orders but binding directions
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 134
Second Appeal No.362 of 1989
Mr. S.M.Dange with Mr.L.T.Satelkar for the Appellant; Ms Anita Patil i/b Mr.Sandeep Ghogare for the Respondents
Tukaram Pandurang Matekar
1.The Head Master, Sant Dnyaneshwar High School, at present V.G. Mane High School; 2. The Education Officer, Education Section, Zilla Parishad, Satara
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second Appeal against dismissal of civil suit by trial court and first appellate court
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to challenge the dismissal of his civil suit claiming violation of government directives under Grant-in-Aid Code
Filing Reason
Appellant alleged that his appointment as a trained teacher was terminated in violation of government directives under Grant-in-Aid Code
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit; first appellate court dismissed the appeal
Issues
Whether violation of government directives given in the Government Resolution under Grant-in-Aid Code can give rise to file a civil suit by a person whose civil and legal rights are infringed as a result of such violation
Whether Government Resolution and Government Notifications issued for regularising Grant-in-Aid Code is merely an administrative order or a direction to the parties for obeying the same or can be treated as mere administrative orders and guidelines
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that violation of government directives under Grant-in-Aid Code infringed his civil and legal rights, entitling him to file a civil suit
Respondents argued that Government Resolution and Notifications are mere administrative orders and guidelines, not binding directions
Ratio Decidendi
Violation of government directives under Grant-in-Aid Code can give rise to a civil suit by a person whose civil and legal rights are infringed; Government Resolutions and Notifications issued for regularising Grant-in-Aid Code are not mere administrative orders but binding directions.
Judgment Excerpts
This Second Appeal is admitted on 1st August 1989. While admitting the Appeal, this Court observed that ground Nos.1 and 2 of Memorandum of Appeal are the substantial questions of law which read thus : (1) That the substantial question of law that arises in this Second Appeal is whether violation of the government directives given in the Government Resolution under Grant-in-Aid-Code can give rise to file a civil suit by a person whose civil and legal rights are infringed as a result of such violation. (2) That the other substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal is whether Government Resolution and Government Notifications issued for regularising Grant-in-Aid Code is merely an administrative order or a direction to the parties for obeying the same or can be treated as mere administrative orders and guidelines, which may or may not be complied with.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a civil suit which was dismissed by the trial court. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal. The appellant then filed a Second Appeal in the Bombay High Court, which was admitted on 1st August 1989. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 23rd March 2005.
