VIDYA DHAR PANDE versus VIDYUT GRIH SIKSHA SAMITI & ORS.

VIDYA DHAR PANDE versus VIDYUT GRIH SIKSHA SAMITI & ORS.

Regulations framed under Section 28(2)(d) of the M.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1955 have statutory force, and their breach renders an order made in contravention illegal and void. Termination of the appellant’s service was in violation of Regulation 79 and therefore illegal; the aided school is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The High Court’s order is set aside and appellant is entitled to be reinstated.

Parties
Appellant: Vidya Dhar Pande; Respondents: Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 October 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court: Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Dismissal of Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Statutory Force of Regulations, Termination of School Employees, Writ Jurisdiction Over Aided Schools
Administrative Law Education Law Constitutional Law Statutory Force of Regulations Termination of School Employees Writ Jurisdiction Over Aided Schools

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vidya Dhar Pande

Appellant

Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court: Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Dismissal of Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether regulations framed under Section 28(2)(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1955 have statutory force
  2. 2 Whether termination of the appellant in violation of Regulation 79 is illegal and entitles him to reinstatement
  3. 3 Whether a writ lies against a privately managed, government-aided educational institution

Ratio Decidendi

Regulations framed under Section 28(2)(d) of the M.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1955 have statutory force, and their breach renders an order made in contravention illegal and void. Termination of the appellant’s service was in violation of Regulation 79 and therefore illegal; the aided school is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The High Court’s order is set aside and appellant is entitled to be reinstated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court order set aside
  • Respondents directed to reinstate appellant as Principal