Case: C. Sankaranarayanan Etc Vs. State Of Kerala

by the rules contained in Chapter XXVIIB and Chapter XIV (C) he was relegated to the same position as that of a teacher of government school even in the matter of superannuation. 7. Another point which has been strenuously urged is that the Government orders which followed the memorandum submitted by the teachers were the result of an understanding which could well be regarded as a binding agreement or contract between the Government and the teachers from which it was not open to the Government to resile unilaterally. Alternatively a rule similar to that of estoppel could be invoked. The first limb of this argument was disposed of by the learned single Judge by rightly pointing out that the power of the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution to make rules regulating the conditions of service of Government employees or of teachers in aided schools under S. 12 of Act 6 of 1959 could in no way be fettered by any agreement even it such an agreement was proved. We have not been shown any principle or authority on which any agreement or contract could be spelt out from the document relied upon. Nor is it possible to understand how the power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution or by the statutory provisions could be curtailed or fettered in any manner by any alleged agreement or contract. The rule of estoppel can hardly be invoked in the circumstances of the case although support was sought from certain decisions of this Court. 8. In union of India v. M/s. Anglo-Afghan Agencies Ltd., (1968) 2 SCR 366 = (AIR 1968 SC 718 ), this Court held that where a person had acted upon the representation made in the export promotion scheme that import licence upto the value of the goods exported would be issued and had actually exported goods his claim for an import licence for the maximum value permissible by the scheme could not be arbitrarily rejected. It was observed that the claim in that case was founded upon the equity which arose as a result of representation made on behalf of the Government in the export promotion scheme and the action taken by the respondents there acting upon the representation. Even though Section 115 of the Evidence Act was not in terms applicable it was still open to the respondent who had acted on that representation to claim that the Government should be bound to carry out the promise made by it though not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by the Constitution. These principles can hardly be applied here because there is no question of any representation having been made by the Government which was acted upon to their detriment by the appellants. Moreover the conditions of service could be indisputably changed in exercise of the powers contained in Article 309 of the Constitution and Act 6 of 1959. In such a situation it was not open to the appellants to invoke the principle of the rule of estoppel. 9. Our attention has also been invited particularly on behalf of the appellants in C. As. 1790 and 1791 to Exhibits P-6 and P-7. Exhibit P-6 is a copy of proceedings of the District Education Officer, Kottayam. It contains a mention of order dated March 10, 1967 in which it is stated that the age of compulsory retirement of all officers in the State had been raised to 58 as per the Government orders mentioned therein. The continuance beyond the age of 55 of these teachers was subject to suitability. A list of certain teachers was given who were allowed to continue in service till 58 years of age. Similarly Exhibit P-7 is a copy of the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Palghat, in which the names of teachers who were to continue beyond the age of 55 was given. This was apparently done after the age of superannuation had been raised to 58 with effect from July 1, 1966 vide Exhibit P-4 (G. O.) dated July 14, 1966. But then, as has been noticed before, the age of retirement was again lowered to 55 years. Change in the rule relating to retirement can be validly made and it does not attract either Art. 311 (2) or Article 14 of the Constitution : see Bishun Narain Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1965) 1 SCR 693 = (AIR 1965 SC 1567 ). 10. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the appellants on Rules 5 and 6 of the Kerala Service Rules. According to Rule 5 nothing in the Rules or in any Rule made thereunder shall operate to deprive any person of any right or privilege to which he is entitled by or under any law or by the terms of any contract or agreement subsisting between such person and government on the date the Rules came into force. Section 6 says that subject to the provisions of Rule 5 nothing in the Rules or any rule made under the Rules shall operate to affect to the disadvantage of any person holding a substantive post under government to whom the Rules apply, "the conditions of service in respect of pay, leave, allowances, pension or any other matter which are applicable to him (a) on the date these rules came into force, or (b) by virtue of any order or rule made by the government unless such person gives his consent". The point sought to be made is that once the age of retirement was raised to 58 it could not be reduced to 55 owing to the provisions of these Rules. This matter was not raised before the Division Bench of the High Court and the normal practice of this court is not to allow a new point to be raised except in a case of a very special nature. We find no reason or justification for entertaining this contention for the first time in this court in the present appeals.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We fully concur with the view of the learned Judges of the High Court and are unable to accede to the contention that in spite of the clear wording of the various rules to which reference has been made the appellant, who is a teacher in an aided school can get the benefit of Rule 8 of Chapter XXVIIA. That cannot possibly be applied to him as that was a general rule and when he opted to be governed by the rules contained in Chapter XXVIIB and Chapter XIV (C) he was relegated to the same position as that of a teacher of government school even in the matter of superannuationAlternatively a rule similar to that of estoppel could be invoked. The first limb of this argument was disposed of by the learned single Judge by rightly pointing out that the power of the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution to make rules regulating the conditions of service of Government employees or of teachers in aided schools under S. 12 of Act 6 of 1959 could in no way be fettered by any agreement even it such an agreement was proved. We have not been shown any principle or authority on which any agreement or contract could be spelt out from the document relied upon. Nor is it possible to understand how the power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution or by the statutory provisions could be curtailed or fettered in any manner by any alleged agreement or contract. The rule of estoppel can hardly be invoked in the circumstances of the case although support was sought from certain decisions of this CourtThese principles can hardly be applied here because there is no question of any representation having been made by the Government which was acted upon to their detriment by the appellants. Moreover the conditions of service could be indisputably changed in exercise of the powers contained in Article 309 of the Constitution and Act 6 of 1959. In such a situation it was not open to the appellants to invoke the principle of the rule of estoppel10. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the appellants on Rules 5 and 6 of the Kerala Service Rules. According to Rule 5 nothing in the Rules or in any Rule made thereunder shall operate to deprive any person of any right or privilege to which he is entitled by or under any law or by the terms of any contract or agreement subsisting between such person and government on the date the Rules came into force. Section 6 says that subject to the provisions of Rule 5 nothing in the Rules or any rule made under the Rules shall operate to affect to the disadvantage of any person holding a substantive post under government to whom the Rules apply, "the conditions of service in respect of pay, leave, allowances, pension or any other matter which are applicable to him (a) on the date these rules came into force, or (b) by virtue of any order or rule made by the government unless such person gives his consent". The point sought to be made is that once the age of retirement was raised to 58 it could not be reduced to 55 owing to the provisions of these Rules. This matter was not raised before the Division Bench of the High Court and the normal practice of this court is not to allow a new point to be raised except in a case of a very special nature. We find no reason or justification for entertaining this contention for the first time in this court in the present appeals.