Judgment:
ORDER
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.
1. The writ petitioner is a reputed degree college at Chirala. It is aggrieved of an order passed by the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education proposing to recover the monies paid to it by the State Government towards salary and allowances that were in turn paid to the 3rd respondent for the period beyond January 1997 up to December 2000, when he had worked as the Principal of the said college. The 3rd respondent was initially recruited as a Demonstrator in the writ petitioner college and subsequently, came to be appointed as a Lecturer. He had been serving the institution from August 1963 onwards. Since the writ petitioner institution is one of the institutions, which maintains and achieved excellence in the field of education, the State Government had admitted various posts, both teaching and non-teaching in the said college, to grant-in-aid. Indisputably, the post of Principal being so pre-eminent position in a degree college was also admitted to grant-in-aid.
2. The 3rd respondent appears to have instituted a civil suit bearing OS No. 146 of 1964 soliciting a declaration of his correct date of birth as 21.12.1942 and the consequential correction of entry relating thereto in his academic record. The State Government was not a party to the said suit. The Andhra University where from the 3rd respondent appears to have obtained the post-graduate degree of M.Sc, is a party to it and it had contested the suit. By the judgment and decree dated 25.9.1964, the said suit came to be decreed and the said decree was got executed resulting in the correction of the entry relating to the date of birth of the 3rd respondent in the records maintained by the Andhra University on 15.2.1977. The other academic records of the 3rd respondent also came to be suitably altered. Based upon these corrected entries, the 3rd respondent wrote to the management of the college to carry out the necessary consequential correction in his service register as well. The management has faithfully carried out the correction based upon the corrected academic record of the 3rd respondent.
3. Subsequent thereto, during the academic session -1982-83, the State Government has undertaken several reforms to its grant-in-aid scheme. As a part of this exercise, it had introduced the direct payment system. The teachers whose appointments have been approved and who have been admitted to the grant-in-aid, got their salary and allowances remitted into their bank accounts directly by the State. But, however, to maintain a proper check on this system, the State Government has evolved a method of getting the particulars of aided institutions verified and approved on periodical basis, so as to ensure that the aid released by the State is not put to abuse or misuse. It will be appropriate to notice that the Regional Joint Directors of Higher Education at Rajahmundry, Guntur, Kadapa, Warangal etc., have all been entrusted with the job of verifying and approving the statements of teaching and non teaching staff furnished by the respective educational institutions. This statement is known as 'fly leaf wherein the particulars relating to the date of birth of the employee, the date from which the post held by him is admitted to grant in aid, the date of approval of the appointment of the individual etc., are all reflected. If any discrepancy has crept in this regard which has come to the notice of the approving agencies, the same is bound to be attended to by the educational institution concerned. This apart, the expenditure incurred by every individual educational institution during every academic session is audited by the Auditors of the Education Department. It is their responsibility to bring out any of the discrepancies noticed by them. In spite of such checks and measures, it was never objected that the entry relating to the date of birth of the 3rd respondent ought not have been altered by the management of the college based upon the correction carried out in his academic record.
4. Apart from this, the 3rd respondent came to be recruited by transfer (by way of promotion) as Principal of the institution. The selection committee included the representative of the State Government/Commissioner of Collegiate Education. The selections so carried out are required to be approved by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. Only upon his approval, the candidate will start receiving the grant in aid. Therefore, the fact that the 3rd respondent came to be promoted as the Principal of the writ petitioner degree college on 20.1.1995 had also presented yet another occasion for the Education Department to raise their objection with regard to the corrections carried out in the entry relating to the date of birth of the 3rd respondent. Without raising any objection, for the first time, through a communication dated 29.12.1995, the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur tried to ascertain from the writ petitioner as to whether there is any gazette notification published with regard to the change of date of birth of the 3rd respondent. Incidentally, the communication dated 29.12.1995 does not disclose as to the basis for requiring the gazette publication with regard to the alteration of the date of birth of the 3rd respondent.
5. Be that as it may, the college had replied to the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education at Guntur on 18.1.1996 that there was no such gazette notification made available by the 3rd respondent with regard to the correction of his date of birth. Thereafter, the Director of Collegiate Education through his proceedings dated 6.7.1998 had issued a show cause notice as to why action should not be taken against the management for altering the date of birth of the individual (3rd respondent) without permission of the Director of Collegiate Education.
In response to the said show-cause notice, the Secretary and Correspondent of the College has furnished a detailed reply on 21.7.1998. It has been pointed out that pursuant to the decree and judgment rendered by the District Munsif, Bapatla, in OS No. 146 of 1964, the Andhra University has altered the date of birth in Matriculation certificate of the 3rd respondent and based thereon, the earlier Secretary and Correspondent of the college carried out the necessary correction. It was further asserted that while submitting the fly leaf in the year 1995-96, it has been specifically noted therein that the matter relating to the date of birth of the individual is under correspondence with the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. Thus, even in the subsequent period, the said noting has been made available to the collegiate authorities. It is further asserted that the auditors appointed by the department have been regularly and periodically undertaking inspection of the records and they have never raised any objection with regard to the alteration of date of birth made in the service register of the individual based upon the alteration ordered by the Andhra University in the matriculation certificate. The Secretary and Correspondent has specifically pointed out that the show-cause notice has not traced out any order, rule or regulation issued by the State government requiring prior permission to be obtained by the employer from the Education department officials for carrying out the correction of the date of birth of the individual in the service register. However, unfortunately, no such information has been put forth by the respondent. After considering the explanation, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, passed the impugned order on 14.9.1998/26.9.1998 proposing to recover the amount paid towards salary paid to the 3rd respondent beyond 58 years, from the management. Questioning this order of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, the present writ petition has been moved.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education as well as the learned Counsel Sri Venkataramana, for the 3rd respondent.
7. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that there is no provision of law, which required the prior permission of the State Government or the Commissioner of the Collegiate Education to be obtained by the private managements before carrying out any correction with regard to the date of birth of the individuals employed in private aided educational institutions. This apart, whatever instructions or orders of the government that were tried to be relied upon by the department are all made in the post 1983 period whereas the correction in question has been carried out some time during the year 1977 and hence they do not have applicability to the case on hand. It was further contended that no reasons have been assigned as to why the explanation submitted by the management to the show-cause notice is not acceptable and as to why the management is made to be penalized while on one hand the impugned order says that a lenient view in the matter is taken.
8. It is relevant to notice that that the power available to the Governor of a State to regulate the conditions of service of public servants is traceable to Article 309 of the Constitution and Entry 42 of List II of VII Schedule to the Constitution. In the absence of any statute made by the Legislature, in terms of the proviso to Article 309, the Governor is entitled to make rules regulating the conditions of service of public servants. But, that power available to the Governor is only with regard to public servants. If the conditions of service of servants employed in private aided educational institutions is sought to be regulated, then there should be necessary sanction of law for doing so. No such provision has been traced out either in the impugned order or at least in the counter affidavit holding the field in the year 1977, when the correction in question has been carried out. Firstly, the instructions which are passed on in the post 1983 period could not have regulated the exercise in 1977 and secondly the applicability of those instructions to the employees working in privately run but aided educational institutions is doubtful, as the instructions regulating the conduct of public servants do not apply to the employees of private educational institutions. Without examining both these questions, the impugned order cryptically observes that the explanation is not found satisfactory. That is more a conclusion than a reason by itself. Every order, which is liable to visit the opposite party with any adverse circumstances, is bound to contain the reasons. Reasons are reflection of the application of mind on the part of the authority that has concluded the issue. In fact, there are no reasons set out in the impugned order. Similarly, there are also no reasons why a lenient view was required to be taken in the matter. It is incongruous that if the circumstances of the case warrant a lenient view to be taken, the same circumstances should also lead to an adverse impact on the respondents. No attempt has been made to reconcile these otherwise irreconcilable factors.
9. It is apt at this stage to notice the time honoured principles set out by the Supreme Court in M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 0044/1965 : AIR 1966 SC 671..Our constitution posits a welfare State it is not defined, but its incidents are found in Chapter III and IV thereof i.e. the parts embodying fundamental rights and directive principles of State Police respectively. Welfare state as conceived by our constitution is a State where there is prosperity, equality, freedom and social justice. In the context of a welfare State, administrative tribunals have come to stay. Indeed, they are the necessary concomitants of a welfare State. But arbitrariness in their functioning destroys the concept of a welfare State itself. Self discipline and supervision exclude or at any rate minimize arbitrariness. The least a tribunal can do is to disclose its mind. The compulsion of disclosure guarantees consideration. The condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimizes arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made and it also enables an appellate or supervisory court to keep the tribunals within bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal.
9. The conception of exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the manner of disposal provided in Rule 55 of the Rules are indicative of the scope and nature of the Government jurisdiction. If tribunals can make orders without giving reasons, the said power in the hands of unscrupulous or dishonest officers may turn out to be a potent weapon for abuse of power. But if reasons for an order are give, it will be an effective restraint on such abuse, as the order, if it discloses extraneous or irrelevant consideration, will be subject to judicial scrutiny and correction. A speaking order will at its best be a reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard.
10. The fact that the 3rd respondent had got the benefit of correction of his date of birth in his service record long after he joined the service of the college and possibly the fact that reckoning by the altered date, he could not have acquired a post graduate degree qualification at such an absurdly young age are all factors which only lend suspicion to the claim. However strong the suspicion might be, it cannot take the form of a conclusion. In the instant case, the individual had continued in service, reckoning his age based upon the corrected date of birth. Therefore, his continuance in service could not have been faulted until and unless correction carried out in the year 1977 has been found to be unjust and improper. For that purpose, no material has been produced, which required the management to obtain the prior permission of the State Government/Collegiate Commisioner before effecting any correction.
11. For these reasons, the impugned order is unsustainable and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.