Appeal No 500 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 27 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Second Appeal No 235 of 1960
B R L Iyengar and E C Agrawala for the appellant
R Gopalakrishnan for the respondent
8 The Judgment of the Court calling for a report was delivered by Shah J
The appellant was appointed on April 10 1949 HeadMistress of St Aloysius Higher Elementary School Urva then in State of Madras
On June 1 1955 the Manager of the School reduced her to the post of an Assistant Teacher
Her appeal to the District Educational Officer South Kanara against the action of the Manager was rejected
In second appeal the Divisional Inspector of Schools Coimbatore by order dated July 5 1956 allowed the appeal and directed the District Educational Officer to issue instructions to the Management of the School to reinstate the appellant as Head Mistress
But no effect was given to that order by the Management
On June 26 1957 the appellant filed the suit out of which this appeal arises claiming a mandatory injunction directing the Management of the School to reinstate her to the post of Head Mistress and damages for loss resulting from the wrongful action of the Management
It was the appellant s case that the school was receiving grantin aid from the Government of Madras and was subject to the supervision and control of the Education Department of the Government of Madras and since the reorganization of the States of the Mysore Government of the affairs of the school said the appellant were conducted according to the rules and regulations framed by the Government and embodied in the rules relating to the elementary schools framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act 1920 and on that account the order passed by the Manager removing her from the post of Head Mistress stood vacated and refusal of the Manager to reinstate her was illegal because the Manager was bound by rr 13  14 framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act to obey the order passed by the Divisional Inspector of Schools on an appeal preferred by her
The suit was resisted by the Management
They contended that they were not bound by the Madras Elementary Education Act or the rules framed thereunder that the Manager alone was responsible for the efficiency strength and progress of the school and for the internal discipline which were all matters left to his discretion and the Management could not be compelled to reinstate the appellant as Head Mistress when she did not command their confidence
The Trial Court held that the appellant was not entitled to claim reinstatement as Head Mistress because the action of the Management removing the appellant s from the post of Head Mistress was not illegal
The Trial Court also held that the orders 9 passed by the Educational authorities were not binding on the Manager and the action taken by the Manager though severe could not be declared illegal
In appeal the District Court reserved the Judgment passed by the Trial Court and decreed the appellant s suit and issued a mandatory injunction directing the Management of the School to reinstate the appellant as Head Mistress of the School
Against that decree a Second Appeal was preferred to the High Court of Mysore
The High Court reversed the decree passed by the District Court and ordered that the appellant s suit do stand dismissed
Against that order this appeal is preferred with special leave
The principal question which fell to be determined before the High Court was whether the rules framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act 1920 which conferred authority upon the educational authorities of the State were statutory and enforceable at the instance of a person prejudicially affected by breach thereof
The Madras Elementary Education Act 8 of 1920 which originally contained 56 sections has been amended from time to time by Madras Acts 2 of 1932 2 of 1934 11 of 1935 13 of 1938 2 of 1939 15 of 1951 28 of 1943 8 of 1946 and 23 of 1950
As a result of these amending Acts a large number of the provisions of the Madras Elementary Education Act 1920 have been modified or repealed
Section 41 which provided for the recognition of elementary schools and section 42 which provided for admission of elementary schools to grant in aid stood repealed by Act 2 of 1939
By section 56 the State Government was authorized to make rules not inconsistent with the Act to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act and by sub section
2 of section 56 it was provided  In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions they may make rules f laying down the registers statements reports returns budgets and other information to be maintained or furnished by local authorities by panchayats and by managers of elementary schools under private management and the time within which any statement report return budget or other information shall be furnished h declaring the conditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid 10 Rules were framed under the Act for the first time by the Govt
of Madras in 1922
These rules provided for the grant of recognition and aid to elementary schools and for prescribing conditions of service and qualifications of teachers and the authority of the District Educational Inspector and higher authorities
The provisions relating to the recognition of the elementary schools and admission of primary elementary schools to grantsin aid were as stated earlier repealed by Act 2 of 1939 but the power to frame rules especially for the purpose of declaring the conditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid was retained
It also appears that even after Act 2 of 1939 which repealed Ch
IV was enacted rules relating to the power of the Educational authorities were republished on August 29 1949 and Part II of the Rules dealt with matters relating to recognition of schools and grant in aid
In the view of the High Court after repeal of sections 41  42 of the Act those rules could only have effect as executive instructions
On this question it appears that there has been some difference of opinion in the High Courts
A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Chandrasekharan Nair and others vs Secretary to Govt
of Kerala and others1 approving their earlier judgment in Joseph Valamangalam vs State of Kerala1 held that the rules contained in Part II headed Rules for grant of recognition and aid to Elementary Schools framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act 1920 were mere executive directions having no statutory authority
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Jalli Venkatswamy V
The Correspondent Kasturiba Gandhi Basic Senior School kenetipuram3 was apparently of the view that these rules had statutory operation
The High Court of Madras in A Ramaswami Ayyangar vs State of Madras Education Department1 held that the rules were administrative and not statutory in their effect and the management could dispense with the services of its employee a teacher after giving three months  notice in the usual course without assigning any special reason and the employee could not invoke the aid of the Court for an order to quash the proceedings of the management dispensing with his services on the ground of non compliance with those rules
1 A I R 1961 Kerala 303
3 A I R 2 A I R 1958 Kerala 290
4 A I R 11 In this case the question whether an order made by the Educational authorities in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by rules is liable to be enforced by action in a civil court at the instance of s person affected by the action of the school authorities falls to be determined
It is unfortunate that counsel have not been able to place before us the Act and the rules in force at the material time
Counsel appearing at the Bar are also unable to inform us about the authority in the exercise of which the rules were originally framed and were reissued after the repeal of Ch
IV of the Act
Before we can decide this appeal we must have before us a copy of the relevant rules in force at the material time and evidence about the authority under which the rules were framed and continued the sanction behind the enforcement of the rules if any and the manner in which the rules were being administered by the Madras Government and thereafter by the State of Mysore when the District of South Kanara merged with that State under the States Reorganization Act 1956
We direct that the papers be sent down to the Trial Court and that the Trial Court do report to us after taking evidence on the questions set out earlier
The Trial Court may if so advised issue a summons to the Educational authorities of the State of Madras or take other steps to ensure production of the documents bearing on the questions on which report is directed to be made
Enquiry may especially directed to the question whether the State of Madras or the state of Mysore have on any earlier occasion enforced the orders passed by the Educational authorities in appeals and the power in exercise of which they have been enforced
The Trial Court to submit the report within six months from the date on which the papers reach that Court
The judgment of the Court after receipt of the report was delivered by Shelat J Prior to June 1 1955 the appellant was working as the Head Mistress in the respondent school
On April 22 1955 the management of the School served certain charges on her and called upon her to reply to the same
Her reply was found to be unsatisfactory and thereupon by an order passed by the management on June 1 1955 she was reduced to the position of an Assistant Teacher
She thereafter filed an appeal against the management before the District Educational Officer South Kanara
Her appeal was rejected
A further appeal by her before the Divisional Inspector of Schools Coimbatore succeeded and the Divisional Inspector directed the management to restore her to her original position as the Head Mistress
The management declined to do so and she filed the suit from which this appeal arises
12 The suit was on the basis that since the school had obtained recognition and grant in aid under the Madras Elementary Education Act VIII of 1920 and the rules made therefore by the Government it was under the supervisionfirst of the Education Department of the Madras Governmentand
after reorganization of States that of the Mysore Government
According to her the Act and the said rules were binding on the school and gave her a right to enforce against the management the said order of the Divisional Inspector
The order reducing her to the position of an assistant teacher stood vacated by the order of the Divisional Inspector and the respondent school therefore was bound to comply with that order and restore her to the position of the Head Mistress The management contested the suit maintaining that the order of reduction passed by it was within its power that there was nothing in the Act or the rules which warranted any interference with its right of internal management of the school and gave no right to the appellant to enforce in a court of law the order passed by the Divisional Inspector that order being only a matter between the Education Department and the management
The Trial Court accepted the school s contention and dismis sed the suit
In an appeal against that dismissal the District Judge took a different view and held that the order of the Department was legally enforceable by the appellant since it was passed in an appeal provided by the said rules
He set aside the dismissal of the suit and passed a decree in favour of the appellant
On a second appeal by the school the High Court went into the legislative history of the Act and on an examination of the rules accepted the contention of the management that the relations hip between the parties was that of master and servant and no mandatory injunction could be issued directing restoration of the appellant as the Head Mistress as that would be tantamount to specific performance of a contract of personal service not permissible under section 21b of 
The High Court also held that the rules under which the appellant had filed the said appeal and the said order was made were only administrative instructions by the Government to its educational officers and not statutory rules which would give rise to a remedy enforceable at law at the instance of an employee of a school aggrieved against its management
Against this judgment the appellant obtained special leave from this Court and filed this appeal
The appeal first came up for hearing in March 1970 before Shah J as he then was and Grover J Not satisfied with the record before them the learned Judges postponed the hearing of the appeal and called for a report from the Trial Court on certain matters found wanting in the record In accordance with that order the Trial Court took additional evidence both oral and 13 documentary and dispatched its report along with a copy of the rules the Madras Gazette in which they were published and certain other materials
From those materials as also from the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in Rev Fr Joseph vs Kerala1 it is possible to trace the charges which the Act and the rules have undergone from time to time
Such a legislative history of the Act is important to a certain extent as it throws light on the character of the rules and the power under which they were framed from time to time
Counsel for the appellant urged that in spite of the changes made from time to time in the Act the rules with which we are concerned in this appeal have retained their original character of being statutory rules
 They must therefore be held to have been made under section 56 and particularly under cl
h of its sub section
2 which empowers the Government to make rules in respect
of recognition as an elementary school and the aid which the Government gives to it from public funds
The argument was that despite the changes in the Act particularly the deletion of certain provisions of the Act to which we shall presently come the definition of an elementary school  in the Act takes in schools recognised by the Director of Public Instruction of the State Government and since such a recognised school is the essence of the scheme of elementary education provided by the Act the rules have to be treated as statutory rules madeunder cl
h of section 562 which is still retained in the Act
Before we proceed to
consider these contentions it is necessary to examine briefly the Act and its legislative history
The Act was first passed as Madras Act VIII of 1920 and then contained seven chapters with 56 sections
It underwent several changes
from time to time and particularly when the Madras Elementary Education Amendment Act
II of 1939 was passed by which Chapter II IV VI and section 55 in Ch
were deleted
The Act was passed with the object of making better provisions for elementary education and envisaged imparting of such education through elementary schools including those run by private managements but recognised by the Government through its Education Department
Sec 3vi of the Act defines such an elementary school as one recognised by the Director of Public Instruction or by such authority as may be empowered by him in that behalf
56 authorized the Government to make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act to carry out all or any of the purposes 1 A I R 1958 Kerala 290
14 of this Act and in particular cl
h of sub section
2 for declaring the conditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid Ch II before its deletion in 1939 provided for the constitution of District Educational Councils their duties their funds budget and audit
VI by sections 41 to 43 in it dealt with recognition of schools and admission of private managed schools to grant in aid
These chapters as stated earlier were repealed in 1939
The Rules were first framed in 1922 under section 56 and contained provisions regarding recognition and aid
These Rules were clearly statutory rules
Curiously although Chs 11 and IV were deleted in 1939 cl
h of section 562 was allowed to remain in the Act
It appears that the rules regulating recognition and aid were framed in 1922 because so long as Chs 11 and IV were in the Statute they had to be made to implement the purposes set out in those chapters
But with the repeal of those chapters those Rules could not be continued as they could no longer be regarded as rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act as section 561 enjoins The Madras Government appears to have appreciated such a re sult arising from the repeal of those chapters and therefore reframed the rules and published them in the Gazette of August 29 1930
The new Rules were divided into two parts
The first part contained rules dealing with matters provided for in sections 3iv and viii section 361 and 2 section 44 section 48 section 50iii and v and section 51
Part II Rules did not set out or refer to any of the sections in the Act as Part I Rules did
The reason was that rules in Part 11 dealt with recognition and aid in respect of which there were after the 1939 amendment no corresponding provisions in the Act
It is also of some significance that when published in 1939 the rules in Part I were headed Rules framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act 1920 while the rules contained separately in Part II were not given any such heading or title
Further it appears that when these Part II Rules were published in August 1939 there was no previous publication of them as required by section 561 of the Act
I in Part II Rules deals with recognition
The power to grant or withdraw such a recognition is conferred on the officers of the Education Department
Under r 5 applications for recognition of schools or additional standards in such schools are to be made to the District Educational Officer
An appeal is provided against his decision before the Divisional Officer
The rules then lay down certain requirements on the basis of which recognition would be given or withheld
Rule 131 provides inter alia for the maintenance of a teacher s service register by the manager of the school specifying therein the terms of service under which a teacher is recruited
The register would include 15 particulars showing whether a teacher is appointed temporarily or on probation or on a permanent basis his salary the scale of pay if any etc
Under the rule the manager has to get the register countersigned by the Deputy Inspector of Schools
The rule further provides that no qualified teacher can be appointed on a temporary basis or for a stipulated period
All appointments to permanent posts have initially to be made on probation and on expire of the probation period the teacher would be deemed to be permanent
2 of r 13 provides that no teacher can leave the service of a school without giving three months  notice or three months  salary in lieu thereof
Under sub cl
ii of cl
2 of that rule the management has the power to terminate the service of any member of the staff whether permanent temporary or probationary without any notice on the grounds set out therein
But three months  notice would be required if the termination of service is for reasons other than those set out in sub cl
ii eg for wailful neglect of duty serious misconduct gross insubordination incompetence etc
The first provision to sub cl
ii requires however that before such notice of termination is given the teacher has to be informed in writing of the charges against him and a reasonable opportunity to be heard has to be given to him
The second proviso to that subclause requires the management to consult the Deputy Inspector and obtain his approval about the propriety of the action proposed against a teacher
The rule then provides  When on a teacher s appeal the District Educational Officer orders reinstatement the management shall forthwith reinstate him within 10 days of the receipt of the orders notwithstanding a further appeal submitted or proposed to be submitted by the management to the Divisional Inspector and shall inform in writing the Deputy Inspector of Schools and the District Educational Officer of the fact of having done so
Failure to comply with such orders of the District Educational Officer may entail action against the management under rule 14 below
 Sub cl
vi of r 132 provides for appeals first before the District Educational Officer and then before the Divisional Inspector of Schools
Under r 14 the Director of Public Instructions has the power to declare after enquiry a teacher to be unfit for employment in a recognised school
Under r 14 A he can refuse or withdraw recognition from a school in which is employed a teacher whom he has declared to be unfit or when the school is under the management of a person declared unfit by him
Recognition can also  be withdrawn under rr
26 to 28 28 A and 28 B on the grounds set out therein
11 of Part II Rules contain rules in regard to aid such as teaching grants maintenance grant etc 16 and Ch
III contains rules with regard to grants for school buildings building sites and play grounds
II and IV of the Act which contained provisions for recognition and aid having been repealed these rules reissued and published afresh in August 1939 cannot be said to be rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act as provided by section 561
No doubt cl
h of sub section 2 of section 56 was still retained even after Chs 11 and IV were deleted and therefore the Government could perhaps claim to have the power to frame statutory rules declaring the conditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid
But even if the Government were to claim to have framed rules under the sanction contained in cl
h of section 562 such rules would not satisfy the condition precedent for such rule making namely that they can be made only to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act
 Such rules therefore even if made would not be rules made under section 56
Besides the fact is that when Part 11 Rules were published in the gazette of August 28 1939 they were not claimed to have been made under the power reserved to the Government under section 56
If they were claimed to have been so made they would firstly have been pre published as required by section 561 and secondly the Government would not have made the distinction between Part I and Part II Rules which it did by giving a title to the former namely that they were made under the Act and omitting to give such a title to the latter
These facts support the contention of the respondent school that Part 11 Rules cannot be said to be statutory rules framed under section 56 although the power to make such rules is still retained with the Government by reason of cl
h being still there in section 562
Ordinarily the relations between the management of an ele mentary school and the teachers employed in it would be governed by the terms of the contract of employment and the law of master and servant in the absence of any statute controlling or abrogating such a contract of employment and providing to the contrary
The mere fact that such a school has obtained recognition and aid from the education department would not mean that the relationship between its management and its employees has ceased to be governed by the contracts of employment under which the employees are recruited and by the law of master and servant unless there is some provision in the Act overriding that law as one finds in statutes dealing with industrial disputes and similar other matters
There is in fact no such provision in the Act and none was pointed out to us
The result is that the relations between the management and the teachers even in a recognised elementary school have to be regarded as being governed by the contracts of employment 17 and the terms and conditions contained therein
Part II Rules which cannot be regarded as having the status of statutory rules made under section 56 cannot be said to have the effect of controlling the relations between the management of a school and its teachers or the terms and conditions of employment of such teachers or abrogating the law of master and servant which ordinarily would govern those relations
But it cannot also be gainsaid that as the Government has the power to admit schools to recognition and grants in aid it can de hors the Act lay down conditions under which it would grant recognition and aid
To achieve uniformity and certainty in the exercise of such executive power and to avoid discrimination the Government would have to frame rules which however would be in the form of administrative instructions to its officers dealing with the matters of recognition and aid
If such rules were to lay down conditions the Government can insist that satisfaction of such conditions would be condition precedent to obtaining recognition and aid and that a breach or non compliance of such conditions would entail either the denial or withdrawal of recognition and aid
The management of school therefore would commit a breach or non compliance of the conditions laid down in the rules on pain of deprivation of recognition and aid
The rules thus govern the terms on which the Government would grant recognition and aid and the Government can enforce those rules upon the management
But the enforcement of such rules is a matter between the Government and the management and a third party such as a teacher aggrieved by some order of the management cannot derive from the rules any enforceable right against the management oh the ground of a breach or noncompliance of any of the rules
To illustrate the point suppose the management of a school were to terminate the service of a teacher after giving one month s notice or one month s salary in lieu thereof in accordance with the contract of employment between the feather and the management such a termination would be valid
But the Government can insist that since its rules provide for three months  notice the management cannot terminate the service of a teacher by giving only one month s notice
Though in the absence of statutory provision having the effect of controlling or superseding the contract of employment agreed to between the parties the termination would in law be valid nevertheless the Government can withdraw under Part II Rules the recognition and aid it has given to the school since its rules governing recognition and aid were riot complied with
But that does not mean that Part II Rules confer upon a third party viz an aggrieved employee of a school any remedy enforceable at law in the event of the management of an elementary school refusing to comply with these 18 rules which inter alia enjoin upon a school to abide by the directions given thereunder by the education officers of the Government named therein
in the absence of any provision in the Act governing the relations between the management and a teacher employed by it or controlling the terms of employment of such a teacher and Part II Rules not being statutory rules the appellant could not be said to have had a cause of action for enforcing the directions given by the Divisional Inspector to restore her as the Head Mistress in the appeal filed by her
Appeals against orders passed by the management against a teacher are provided for under r 19 so as to enforce the satisfaction of conditions under which recognition and aid would be granted or withdrawn and not for regulating as between the teacher and the management the relations of master and servant arising under the contract of employment
In Rev Fr Joseph vs Kerala1 the Kerala High Court had to consider the question of these rules being statutory or not as one of the schools whose writ petition among others it was trying was governed by the Madras Elementary Education Act 1920 and the rules made by the Madras Government
After tracing legislative history of the Act as also of the rules the High Court held that Part II Rules did not have any statutory origin and were therefore only administrative instructions by the Government to its educational officers and therefore did not vest in the school any statutory right for grant in aid
This decision was later approved by a full bench of that High Court in Chandrasekharan Nair vs Secretary to Government of Kerala2 where that Court once again held that Part II Rules were administrative rules
Similarly in A Ramaswami Ayyangar V Madras3 the High Court of Madras negatived the contention that these rules dealing with recognition and aid could be invoked by an employee against the management of a private elementary school to enforce a right allegedly arising under the rules
The High Court held that the rules were not statutory  rules and that therefore
they could not enlarge the scope of the contract of employment between such an employee of the school and the management embodied in the school register and that the rules affected the relations between the school and the Government and not a third party
In Govindaswami vs Andhra1 a learned Single Judge of the Andhra High Court took the view that the powers and functions of the State s educational officers under these rules in relation to recognition a ad aid were quasi judicial and held that these rules were Statutory 1 A 1
R 1958 Kerala 290
3 19621 M L J 269
2 A I R 1961 Kerala 303
4 19621 An
W R 263
19 rules
But this view was on an assumption that even Part II Rules were made under section 562h of the Act
Such an assumption was made without any enquiry whether they were so made and without taking into account the fact of the deletion of Chs
II and IV from the Act in 1939 and its impact on the rule making power of the Government the re issuance of the rules thereafter and the distinction made by the Madras Government itself between Part I and Part 11 Rules in the headings which it gave to those two parts
The more recent view of the Andhra High Court however is reflected in Moss vs The Management1 where a Division Bench of that High Court has held that Part 11 Rules relating to recognition and aid are not statutory rules but are only executive instructions and therefore are not legally enforceable in a court of law
On the reasons aforesaid the suit filed by the appellant must be held to be misconceived and consequently the High Court righty dismissed her suit
The appeal fails and is dismissed
But in the circumstances of the case we decline to make any order as to costs
V P section Appeal dismissed
1 1970II An
W R 157


Summary:
The appellant who was working as the Headmistress in the respondent school was reduced to the position of an Assistant Teacher
Her appeal to the District Educational Officer under
132vi of Part 11 of the rules published by the State Government in the Gazette on August 29 1939 was rejected but on a further appeal by her to the Divisional Inspector of Schools the management of the school was directed to restore her to the position of Headmistress
As the management did not do so she filed a suit for the issue of a mandatory injunction to the respondent and for damages
On the question whether the rules under which the appeal was filed and the order was made were only administrative instructions by the Government to its educational officers and not statutory rules which would give rise to a remedy enforceable at law at the instance of an employee of a school aggrieved against the management HELD 1 Section 56 of the Madras Elementary Education Act 1920 authorized the Government to make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act  and under sub section 2h for declaring the conditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid and rules were framed in 1922
The Act was amended by Amendment Act of 1939 by which Chs 11 IV VI and section 55 were deleted
The existing rules therefore could not be continued as they could not be regarded as rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act  Hence they were reframed and published in the Gazette in 1939 in two parts
13F H 14D
a The first part contained rules dealing with matters provided for in the various sections
The rules in Part II could not refer to any section because they related to matters such as recognition and aid dealt with in sections and Chapters which were repealed by the 1939 amendment and hence Part II rules did not set out or refer to any section of the Act
14E
b The rules in Part I were headed Rules framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act 1920  but the Rules in Part 11 were not given any such heading or title
14F
c There was no previous publication of the rules in Part 11 as required by section 561
14F G
d The rules in Part 11 could not be claimed to have been made under section 562 h dealing with the conditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid because they did not satisfy the condition precedent for such rule making namely that they could be made only to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act  16D F
7 Therefore the rules in Part 11 could not be said to be statutory rules framed under section 56
16F 2 But the Government had the power de hors the Act to lay down conditions under which it could recognise and grant aid
To achieve uniformity and certainty in the exercise of such executive power and to avoid discrimination Government could frame rules which would however only be administrative instructions to its officers
17B D The rules in the present case relating to recognition and aid thus governed the terms on which Government would grant recognition and aid and Government could enforce the rules on the management by the denial or withdrawal of such recognition or aid if there was a breach or noncompliance of the conditions laid down in the rules
But the enforcement of such rules was a matter between the Government and the management and a third party such as a teacher aggrieved by same order of the management could not derive from the rules any enforceable right against the management on the grounds of a breach of or non compliance with any of the rules
17D E 19B C 3 The relation between the management of the elementary school and the teachers employed in it would be governed by the terms of the contract of employment and the law of master and servant in the absence of any statute or statutory rules controlling or abrogating such a contract and providing to the contrary
16F G The result is that the relations between the managements and the teachers even in a recognised elementary school have to be regarded as being governed by the contracts of employment and the terms and conditions contained therein
Part II Rules which cannot be regarded is having the status of statutory rules made under section 56 cannot be said to have the effect of controlling the relations between the management of a school and its teachers
16H 17A B Therefore the appellant could not be said to have had a cause of action for enforcing the directions given by the Divisional Inspector to restore her as the Headmistress in the appeal filed by her
Appeals against orders passed by the management against a teacher are provided for under r 13 so as to enforce the satisfaction of conditions under which recognition and aid would be granted or withdrawn and not for regulating as between the teacher and the management the relations of master and servant arising under the contract of employment
18B C Chandrasekharan Nair vs Secretary to Government of Kerala  A Ramaswami Ayyangar vs State of Madras  and Moss
vs The Management  approved
Govindaswami vs Andhra  overruled