Holding

An order passed without notice in violation of natural justice is void, and the management’s discretionary power to appoint the principal of a minority institution cannot be interfered with; therefore, the senior appellant is entitled to the post of principal.

Summary

The dispute concerned the seniority and appointment of the principal of Andhra Christian College, a minority institution, between appellant R. Sulochana Devi and respondent D.M. Sujatha. The Regional Joint Director (RJD) initially opined that another lecturer, Mr. P. Andrew, was senior, leading to his appointment as principal; after the appellant’s representation, the RJD revised its opinion, deeming the appellant a lecturer from 1 August 1969. The Division Bench of the High Court gave effect to the earlier RJD opinion and appointed the respondent as principal, which the appellant challenged. The Supreme Court held that the RJD’s earlier opinion was a nullity for violating natural‑justice principles, that such an order is void, and that the management’s discretionary power to select the principal of a minority college cannot be interfered with. Consequently, the appellant’s seniority was established and she was entitled to be appointed principal, leading the Court to set aside the Division Bench’s decision, restore the single judge’s order, and direct the college to appoint the appellant as principal.

Issues considered

The validity of the Regional Joint Director's opinion dated 15.02.2000 as a quasi‑judicial order subject to review
Whether the RJD's opinion violated the principles of natural justice and is therefore void
Whether the management's discretionary power to appoint the principal of a minority educational institution can be interfered with by the court
Whether the appellant is senior to the respondent for purposes of appointment as principal
Whether the Division Bench erred in giving effect to the earlier RJD opinion and appointing the respondent as principal

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982s. 89

Subjects

seniorityprincipal appointmentminority educational institutionnatural justicequasi‑judicial authoritymanagement discretionservice lawreview of ordervoid order

Judgment

- ;. R. SULOCHANA DEVI A
v.
D.M. SUJA THA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 4, 2004

[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.J B

A, Service Law

Selection-Principal ofeducational institutions managed by minorities-
Discretionary power ofchoice of management ought not to be interfered with. c
Seniority-Post of Principal in College-Dispute between lecturers-'A'
appointed over claim of 'B' on opinion ofRegional Joint Director of Collegiate
Education (RJD) based on fact that latter had objections from audit which ..
also indicated her appointment from subsequent years-However, on
D
representation of 'B', RJD giving opinion that she was deemed to be lecturer
with effect from an earlier year,-On retirement of 'A' and, on representation
of 'C', RJD giving opinion that as 'B' did not act on its opinion that she was
deemed to be lecturer with effect from an earlier year, she had no claim to
seniority-However, a government order declared 'B' to be senior to 'C'-
Correctness of-Held: 'B' had the seniority as although she received salary of E
lecturer and no recoveries were made from her on ground of having worked
in a lower post, whereas name of 'C' in seniority list was at a lower place and
she also had a break in her service-Proceedings of RJD whereby 'A' was
appointed to post of lecturer was not a quasi judicial order passed in exercise
of statutory power; it was only an opinion and its subsequent reconsideration
did not amount to review-This opinion was also non-est in law as no notice
F
was given to 'B' before passing it-However, no notice was required to be
given by RJD to 'C' before giving its opinion that 'B' was deemed to be
lecturer with effect from an earlier year as she was not party to dispute
between 'A' and 'B'-Also, no notice was required to be given by government
to 'C' as its order did not change seniority of anyone. G
Order-Made in violation of natural justice-Held that it is void and
need not be challenged in court of law.

Appellant joined as Demonstrator in the Department of Chemistry
., I H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A in the respondent College on 1.8.1968. She was promoted as Lecturer on ~,

1.8.1969 and was appointed Vice-Principal with effect from 12.1.2000.
Obtaining the opinion of Regional Joint Director (RJD) of Collegiate
education that one A, appointed as lecturer on 28 6.1969, was senior to
her, respondent appointed him as pri~cipal. This opinion was given on the
basis that in audit report, appellant's promotion was neither recorded nor
B
approved by the Department of Higher Education. Its basis was also that
she was only admitted as Junior Lecturer/Demonstrator in the Audit
report for the year 1973-1976 and that she was allowed only one in~rement
treating her as Demonstrator. However, subsequently, when appellant also
approached RJD, he gave a opinion that she was deemed to be lecturer
c w.e.f. 1.8.1969.

Respondent No. 1 represented to RJD that she was ignored for post
of Principal despite being senior to appellant. RJD ordered that as
appellant did not act on his opinion that she was deemed to be lecturer
w.e.f. 1.8.1969, she had no claim to seniority for post of principal after
D retirement of A. Aggrieved by this, appellant approached the Government,
which declared her as s.enior to respondent no. 1. Against this decision,
writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 was dismissed by Single judge of
High Court, but writ appeal against same was allowed by Division Bench.
.
Hence the present appeal.
E Respondent no. 1 contended that appellant was not appointed as
Associate-Principal; that RJD being a quasi judicial authority had no
power to review its own order; while issuing the modified order she was
deemed to be lecturer w.e.f. 1.8.1969, the RJD has not issued any notice
to her; and that due to audit objection, the appellant was not paid the
F salary of Lecturer.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD 1.1. The first respondent is not entitled to hold the post of
Principal. The appellant admittedly being senior to the first respondent
G is entitled to hold the post of Principal of the College in question till her
date of retirement. (19-F)

1.2. The Division Bench ought not to have interfered with the
discretionary power that is vested with the Management to chose the
principal of its choice. It is settled that Courts shall be loathe in interfering
H with the choice of the Management in the selection of the Principal ".
R.S. DEVI v. D.M. SUJATHA 3
candidate with reference to the educational institutions under the A.
Management of the minority institutions. (19-A, BJ

2. The minutes of the Management of the respondent college dated
6-3-1976 shows that the appellant entered the service as a Lecturer w.e.f.
1.8.1969. In the very same minutes, it was shown that the first-respondent
entered the service as junior Lecturer w.e.f. 30.8.1969. Further, in the B
seniority list, the name of the appellant was shown at sl. No. 20 and it was
•• stated that she had been working as a Lecturer in Chemistry having joined
on 1.8.1969 and prior to that, she worked as Demonstrator from 1.8.1968
to 31.7.1969. The first respondent was shown at sl. No. 23 and she had
been working as a Lecturer in English w.e.f. 30.8.1969. At no point of time, C
there was any break in the service of the appellant as a Lecturer right
from 1.8.1969 though there was a break in the service of the first
respondent. (15-G, H; 16-A, DJ

3.1. There is abundant material and evidence produced by the
appellant to show that she is a Lecturer w.e.f. 1.8.1969 and the Division .Q
Bench of High Court was wrong in considering only audit reports to hold
that she is a Lecturer only w.e.f. 1.4.1976: The Division Bench could have
• avoided taking such a hypertechnical view. Admittedly, the appellant was
appointed as demonstrator w.e.f. 1.8.1969 and she had drawn her salary
as a Lecturer from 1.8.1969 in an aided vacancy. (19-C, 16-H) E
3.2. It is true that there was some audit objection but the fact remains
no recoveries were made against the appellant treating her only as
demonstrator and that would categorically indicate that the appellant was
althrough a Lecturer in the aided vacancy right from 1.8.1969 and as such
she was senior to A and was deprived of her right of being promoted to F
the post of Principal on 31.1.2001 and again when the first respondent
was made in charge Principal of the College w.e.f. 1.5.2003 on retirement
of A. Thus it is seen that the appellant has suffered humiliation in view of
the wrong decision taken by RJD earlier on 15.3.2000 which was later
modified by an order dated 15.4.2002. [17-E, Fl
G
4. The proceedings of RJD wherein it was said that A was senior to
her was rendered at the instance of the Correspondent of the College. Thus
it was purely an opinion rather than an administrative order and when
the appellant made a representation, that was reconsidered and a proper
opinion was rendered on 15.4.2002. This does not amount to review. H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. S S.C.R.

A Further, they are not quasi judicial orders passed in exercise of any
statutory power and it does not oust the jurisdiction of the RJD to
reconsider it and pass revised order. [16-E, F]

5.1. Division Bench is not correct in giving so much sanctity for the

.,
opinion dated 15.2.2000 of RJD where there is a violation for non-
B a4herence to the principles of natural justice. [19-B]

5.2.- Opinion of RJD that A was senior to appellant is non est in law
since no notice has been given to parties before passing such an order.
This order is a nullity and, therefore, it can be ignored by the appellant
C and the question of filing a review by the appellant does not arise.
(17-G, H; 18-A)

5.3. When the order passed by an authority is not in accordance with
law and no notice was communicated to the party it is a nullity and need
not be challenged in a Court of law. (18-A]
D
5.4. Order made in I
violation of natural justice is void. Likewise, an
order made without hearing the party affected is also bad in law. In the
instant case, the orderf made in violation of natural justice is void.
(18-B, CJ
E I
Krishnan Lal v. State of J&K, (1994) 4 SCC 422, relied on.
I
6.1. Contention that RJD while giving its opinion that appellant was
deemed to be Lectur~r w.e.f. 1.8.1969, did not give any notice to first
respondent is not acceptable, as at that time latter was no where in picture.
F In fact, the dispute as !to seniority at that time was inter se the appellant
and one A and the first respondent did not raise any dispute. The first
I
respondent did not bother as to the claim of the appellant that she is senior
,.
to A. If she was reall~ concerned, s}le could have joined the issue and
worked out her remedies. The fact remains that the first respondent did
I
G not raise any objection immediately after the order was passed on
15.4.2002 declaring t~e seniority of the appellant in the post of Lecturer
and that it should be reckoned from 1.8.1969. She filed writ petition only
after about an year of issuance of the said order dated 15.4.2002.
(7-B, CJ

H 6.2. Further, issuing of any notice to the first respondent in the
R.S. DEVI v. D.M. SU.IA THA [LAKSHMANAN, .I.] 5
proceedings in G.O.Rt No. 308 dated 22.4.2003 also does not arise, since A
the said GO has not altered any- body's seniority. The said G.O. was issued,
in fact, in pursuance of a representation of the appellant. The first
respondent was not entitled for any relief, since her right as such either
under the proceedings dated 15.2.2000 or the order dated 15.4.2002 of the
RJD was affected. 117-D, El
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6478-6479
of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.A. Nos. 2078 and 2079 of 2003.

T.L. V. Iyer, G. Ramakrishna Prasad and Wasay Khan for the Appellant.
c
P.P. Rao, Ms. M. Sarada, Ms. P. Mahalakshmi, G. Balaji, Raj Kumar
Mehta, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy and John Mathew for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted.

These two appeals are directed against the common judgment passed
by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal Nos. 2078-2079 of
2003 dated 23.12.2003. Writ Appeal 2078 of 2003 was filed by Smt. D.M.
Sujatha, first respondent herein, against the order in Writ Petition No.4279 of E
2003 dated 20.11.2003. Writ Appeal No. 2079 of 2003 _was filed by the first
respondent herein against the order in Writ Petition No.6362 of 2003 dated
20.11.2003. Both the appeals were heard together by the Division Bench_ of
the High Court which ultimately allowed both the writ appeals filed by the
first respondent herein and dismissed another Writ Petition No.4279 of 2003 F
as infructuous.

For proper appreciation of the controversy involved in the matter, it is
necessary to state the few facts in brief :

The appellant-Smt. R. Sulochana Devi joined the Andhra Christian
College as Demonstrator in the Department of Chemistry on 1.8.1968. She G
was promoted as Lecturer in an aided post on 1.8.1969 and her promotion
was confirmed from the date of appointment, i.e., with effect from 1.8.1969.
She was given the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme of 16 years and
21 years. She was also appointed as Vice Principal and Associate Principal
and also admitted to grant in aid. The respondent-College appointed respondent H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A No. I, Smt. D.M. Sujatha, as Lecturer in English w.e.f. 30.8.1969 and the
Board of Education of the respondent-College approved the promotion of the
appellant as Lecturer as also the appointment of respondent No. I as Lecturer
from the respective dates of their appointment. On I .5. I 972, Smt. D.M.
Sujatha, respondent No. I, was reverted to the post of Junior Lecturer and
B worked in the same post for about four years up to 31.8.1974. She was again
re-designated as a Lecturer in English only on I. 7. I 976. By proceedings
dated I I. I2. I 975, the Director of Higher Education directed the Director that
respondent No. l be treated as Lecturer w.e.f. 30.8. I 969 by extending general
protection. The Director of Higher Education by the proceedings dated
I I. I 2. I 97 5 issued directions for the purpose of giving general protection to
C Lecturers/Junior Lecturers working in various institutions to be treated as
Lecturers for the purpose of service and seniority from their respective dates
of appointment as Lecturer/Junior Lecturer, if they are appointed in the grant-
in-aid post prior to 1.5.1971. In the seniority, the appellant was placed at
S.No.20 and respondent No. I was placed at S.No.23. The appellant was
D promoted as Vice-Principal of the College by proceedings of the Manager of
the Management.

One, Mr. P. Andrew was appointed as a Lecturer on 28.6.1969. The
Management wanted to favour Mr. Andrew by appointing him as a Principal
by superseding the appellant herein and in order to achieve this object, the
E Management of the College had approached the then Regional Joint Director
(for short "the RJD") with a query to decide the inter se seniority between
Mr. P.Andrew and the appellant-Smt. Sulochana Devi. According to the
appellant, all this was behind the back of her. The RJD, without following the
principles of natural justice had given an opinion by saying that Mr. P.
Andrew is senior to the appellant and that the amount. to be paid to the
F appellant as salary in excess should be recovered. The opinion was also given
on the basis that in the audit report, the appellant's promotion was not recorded
and was not approved by the Department of Higher Education as per the
audit report and she was only admitted as Junior Lecturer/Demonstrator in
the Audit Report for the years 1973-1976 and that she was allowed only one
G increment treating her as Demonstrator. According to the appellant, it was a
pre-determined order passed by the RJD.

The Management of the College had resolved to promote Mr. P. Andrew
as Principal pursuant to the opinion rendered by the RJD for Collegiate
Education when he is senior to the appellant and Mr. P. Andrew was promoted
H as Principal by a Resolution of the Management Committee dated 1.2.200 I.
R.S. DEVI v. D.M. SU.IATHA [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 7
Aggrieved by the decision taken by the Management for promoting Mr. P. A
Andrew as Principal by ignoring the seniority of the appellant, the appellant
filed a writ petition challenging the orders passed by the respondent-College
Management by way of Writ Petition 1031 of 200 I. The appellant also gave
a representation to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education that the RJD
had given a wrong opinion behind her back to the Management and the
Management was persuaded to appoint Mr. P. Andrew who is junior to the B
appellant as Principal. The appellant urged the Commissioner of Collegiate
Education to get the same rectified by her representation dated 1.6.200 l. On
30.1.2001, the appellant assailed the Resolution of the Management to promote
Mr. P. Andrew as Principal by way of filing a suit before the Junior Civil
Judge, Guntur. The appellant also made another representation to the C,
Commissioner of Collegiate Education about the discrimination meted to her
and also the error committed in the audit report from 1973-1976. In view of
some changed circumstances, the appellant withdrew the suit filed by her as
not pressed on 23.11.2001. The appellant also withdrew Writ Petition No.
l 031 of 200 l with an intention to approach the competent authority under the
Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
As no decision was forthcoming from the Commissioner of Collegiate
Education, the appellant made anotrer representation to the said authority
and also the RID of the Collegiate Education. On the same date, a similar
representation was made to the Director of Collegiate Education. The appellant
also filed the Service Registers and audit report before the concerned E '
authorities to show that ever since her appointment, she was treated as a
Lecturer for all purposes.

The RJD of Collegiate Education considered the case of the appellant
and gave a clarification that the appellant must be deemed as a Lecturer with
effect from 1.8.1969 under the general protection in view of the proceedings F
bearing RC No. 4209/K II.3/5 dated 11.12.1975. Copy of the order passed by
the RJD of Collegiate Education dated 15.4.2002 is annexed as Annexure P-
8. The last paragraph of the order reads thus:

"In view of the circumstances stated in the reference (4) read above
and in modification of the orders issued in the reference first read G
above, Smt. R. Sulochana Devi, Lecturer in Chemistry, A.C. College,
Guntur is treated as Lecturer w .e.f. 01.08.1969, i.e., from the date of
promotion under general protection in view of the proceedings RC
No.4209/KII.3/5, dated 11.12.1975 of the Director of Higher
Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad."
H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Respondent No. l, Smt. D.M. Sujatha, made a representation to the RJD
stating that she had been ignored despite the fact that she was senior to the
appellant and, therefore, she ought to have been promoted as Principal. Copy
of the representation given by respondent No. I is annexed as Annexure P-9. ~-

The RJD, by the proceedings dated 3.2.2003, passed an order saying that the ....
appellant cannot be made the Principal because she had relinquished her right
B to become Principal since she did not act upon the order passed by the RJD
dated 15.4.2002 by virtue of which she was Lecturer w .e.f. 1.8.1969 and,
~
therefore, she has no right to claim seniority for the post of Principal at this
juncture after the retirement of Mr. P. Andrew. Aggrieved by the order passed
by the RJD, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 4279 of 2003. The High
c Court granted interim suspension of the order dated 3.2.2003 issued by the
RJD of Collegiate Education in an interlocutory application. The appellant,
in the meantime, made a representation to the Government by stating all the
facts and bringing it to the notice of the Go_vernment with regard to the
mischief played by the Management and the RJD collectively in order to do
a favour to Mr. P. Andrew. The Government issued an order in fa\ our of the
D appellant herein by G.O.RT. No. 308 dated 22.4.2003. The relevant portion
of the G.O.RT.No.308 reads thus:

"The matter has been examined in the light of the orders of the
A.P. High Court, 2nd read above, keeping in view the appeal petition
filed by Smt R. Sulochana Devi, Lecturer 3rd above, and it is observed
E that Smt. R. Sulochana Devi was treated as Lecturer in A.C. College
with effect from 1.8.1969. though she has not challenged the promotion
of her junior, Sri P. Andrew as Principal, the fact remains that she
was not offered the post of Principal of A.C. College and, therefore,
the question of her relinquishment to the post of Principal does not
F arise and that she is senior to Smt. D.M. Sujatha, Lecturer."

After a lapse of more than one year, respondent No. I had also filed
Writ Petition No.6362 of 2002 assailing the orders passed by the RJD dated
15.4.2002 bearing proceedings LDS No. 758/82/2002 wherein the appellant
was treated as a Lecturer w.e.f. 1.8.1969, i.e., from the date of her promotion
G as Lecturer from that .of Demonstrator under the general protection as per
proceedings dated 11.12.1975 of the Director of Higher Education modifying
the order passed on 15.3.2000. The first respondent also filed another Writ
Petition No. 7723 of 2003 assailing the order passed by the Government in
G.0.Ms. No.308 dated 22.4.2003 wherein the appellant was declared as senior
to the first respondent. f
H
R.S. DEVI v. D.M. SUJATHA [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 9

All the three writ petitions were heard together by the learned single A
Judge of the High Court. By a common judgment dated 20.11.2003, the
learned single Judge allowed the writ petition bearing No. 4279 of 2003 filed
by the appellant herein and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the first
respondent herein. In the concluding part of the judgment, the learned single
Judge observed as follows:
B
"I am constrained to observe that the management of the College
is behind this litigation since the opinion rendered by the 3rd
respondent on 15.2.2000 was at its instance and the same was reversed
on 15.4.2002 pursuant to the representation of the appellant and that
is the reason why the 5th respondent filed the Writ Petition after C
more than an year against the said order dated 15.4.2002 of the 3rd
respondent passed in favour of the petitioner. Furthermore, the 5th
respondent has not challenged the promotion of the petitioner asVice-
Principal on 13.01.2002 and subsequently as Associate Principal on
10.1.2003."
D
Aggrieved by the above judgment, the first respondent herein filed writ
appeals. However, the first respondent has not challenged the order passed in
Writ Petition No.7723 of 2002 in which she had sought a mandamus to
declare G.O.Ms. No.308 dated 22.4.2003 as illegal.

By a common judgment and order dated 23.12.2003, the Division Bench E·
of the High Court allowed the said writ appeals. Being aggrieved by the said
order, the appellant has preferred the above appeals by way of special leave
petitions.

We heard Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel, Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy F
and Mr. John Mathew, learned counsel for the respondents.

We have been taken though the entire pleadings, annexures filed along
with the special leave petition and the additional documents filed by the
parties with the permission of the Court.
G
Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant
made the following submissions:

According to Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, the opinion rendered by the RJD dated
15 .2.2000 is not under any of the provisions of the Act and that the Division H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Bench is wrong· in construing that such an opinion is an order passed under
the provisions of the Act. It was further submitted that the Division Bench
is not right in interfering with the discretionary power that is vested with the
Management to choose a Head of the Institution/Principal and, therefore,
such interference is impermissible in law. This apart, the opinion dated
15.2.2000 rendered by the competent authority was given behind the back of
B the appellant herein without there being any notice. He further contended that
the Division Bench is not right in giving so much sanctity for the opinion
dated 15.2.2000 when it is vitiated for non-adher:nce of the principles of
natural justice and that such an order is a nullity in the eye of law and a void
one being non est in law. It was further contended that the Division Bench
C is not correct in considering only the audit reports to hold that the appellant
is a Lecturer only w.e.f. 1.4.1976 when there is ample evidence produced by
the appellant to show that she is a Lecturer w.e.f. l.8.1969. It was also
contended that the first respondent herein had not chosen to challenge the
order passed in Writ Petition No. 7723 of 2003 and that the Division Bench
D is not right in not taking this aspect o~ the matter into consideration to
understand the conduct of the first respondent. He would further submit that
the proposition propounded by the Division Bench that a quasi-judicial
authority cannot review its own order unless the power to review is expressly
conferred on it by the Statute can not be applied to the facts of the present
case. It was further contended that the Division Bench has failed to take into
E consideration that the opinion of the RJD dated 15.2.2000 is non est in law
since no notice had been given to the parties before passing such an order
and, therefore, the subsequent order that was passed by the RJD dated
15.4.2002, after considering all the relevant documents, was the first order
and cannot be termed as review at all. It was further contended that the
Division Bench could not appreciate the fact that the Government of Andhra
F Pradesh had categorically stated in its counter that the appellant is a Lecturer
with effect from the date of her promotion, i.e., from 1.8.1969 and, therefore,
she is senior to the first respondent herein. This apart, the first respondent has
not raised any grievance or dispute at any stage at all except in the year 2003
regarding her seniority above the appellant herein. Even when the order was
G passed by the RJD dated 15.4.2002, the first respondent did not raise even
a little finger within time. It was then submitted that the appellant, at no point
of time, has expressly or even impliedly relinquished her right to the post of
Principal as per the seniority and she made several representations and also
filed a suit and the writ petition complaining about the discrimination meted
to her. However, the same were withdrawn since the appellant thought it
H would be appropriate to go through proper channel, that is, to approach the
R.S. DEVI v. D.M. SUJATHA [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 11
competent authority under the Act. It was also a matter of record that the A
appellant made several representations as can be seen from the record itself.
Representations dated 1.6.2001, 22.10.2001, 10.12.2002, 10.1.2003, 5.2.2003,
I0.2.2003 etc. were all in respect of the injustice that has been caused to her.
Mr. T.L.V. Iyer further submitted that the Division Bench should have seen
the Resolutions of the Management, minutes of the Management, proceedings
of the competent authorities, the service registers, the seniority registers, the B
pay scale details etc. Each go to show that the appellant was never
contemplated to be deemed to be a Demonstrator and nor a Lecturer and that
the minutes of the Management, in unambiguous tenns, show that the appellant
was appointed as Demonstrator on 1.8.1969 continued as Demonstrator up to
31.7. 1969 and, thereafter from 1.8.1969, she was promoted to the post of C
Lecturer that too in aided post. In fact, there is any amount of evidence
produced by the appellant to show that she is Lecturer from l .8.1969 whereas
the Division Bench is wrong in considering only audit reports to hold that she
is a Lecturer only w.e.f. l .4.1976 which is a very hyper technical view taken
by the Division Bench. Concluding his submissions, learned senior counsel
submitted that the Division Bench has failed to see that the RJD gave the D
opinion dated 15.12.2000 without any authority under the provisions of the
Act and in such an event, the opinion dated 15.12.2000 is not a valid order
in the eye of law apart from being vitiated for non-adherence to the principles
of natural justice. Therefore, such an opinion dated 15.12.2000 cannot be
construed to be a valid order under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, E
such an opinion cannot even be challenged by way of an appeal before the
Government for all practical purposes.

Mr. P.P.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent,
submitted that:
F
I. The appellant's promotion as Lecturer in chemistry w.e.f.
01.08.1969 was not approved by the departmental authorities
and it was not in consonance with the rules and her pay as
Lecturer was disallowed for the years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-
75 and 1975-76 and hence the appellant cannot reckon her
seniority from 01.08.1969. G
2. The appellant though questioned the proceedings dated 15.02.2000
in writ petition No. 1031 of 2001 and withdrew the same and
also filed the suit claiming seniority and withdrew the same on
13.03.2000 without seeking liberty to agitate the same. The
appellant having not filed any appeal against the proceedings H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
)
......
A dated 15.02.2000, the same had become final and the respondent
authority has no power under the provisions of the A.P. Education
Act to review the said proceeding;
3. It was further argued that the appellant was designated as a
Lecturer w.e.f. 0 l .04.1976 consequent on the merger of the posts "
B in terms of instructions contained in G.O.Ms. No. I 072 dated
26.11.1976 and G.O.Ms. No. 74& dated 30.0&. I 9&2. It was further
contended that the appellant is not entitled to the general
protection contained in the proceedings of the Director of Higher
Education dated l l.12.1975. having regard to the fact that the
appellant is not a teacher and is not an Assistant Lecturer entitled
c to the benefit of the proceedings of the Director of Higher
Education dated 11.12.1975.
4. He would further submit that by the proceedings dated 15.04.2002,
the appellant is given seniority over the first respondent herein
and in that view of the matter the first-respondent herein is entitled
D to notice assuming without admitting that the RJD had the power
to review his order.
5. It is also submitted that the appellant was granted career
advancement scheme erroneously counting her service from
0 l.0&.1969 which was disallowed by the audit.
E
6. The RJD by his proceedings dated 15.02.2000 has assigned the
date on 01.04.1976 to the appellant as a date from which she is
eligible to be treated as Lecturer taking into account service
registers, audit report and other materials which establish that
the appellant did not draw the scale of pay payable to the post
F of a Lecturer even though she was allegedly p_romoted as such.
7. No notice was issued to the first respondent herein before passing
of the impugned proceedings dated 15.04.2002 as the said
proceedings advers!!IY affects the rights, interests and legitimate
expectations of the first respondent. The said proceedings were
G passed in post-haste by RJD with an intention of conferring undue
favour on the appellant and unduly affecting the right of the first
respondent herein and Ors., and that the mode and manner in
which the proceedings were passed lack of arbitrariness and
unfairness;
I#"
H 8. The order dated 15.02.2000 was appealable under Section 89 of
R.S. DEVI v. D.M. SUJATHA [LAKSHMANAN, .I.] 13

the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and that the appellant did not A
prefer any appeal against the said order and, therefore, the order
dated 15.02.2000 became final and conclusive so far as the
seniority of the appointment in the post of Lecturer is concerned. ~
The RJD being a quasi judicial authority could not review its
orders since power of review is conferred only on the Government B
and a quasi judicial authority cannot review its order unless the
power of review is expressly conferred on ir by the statute under
which it derives jurisdiction. Therefore, the crder dated 15 .04.2002
of the RJD which amounted to a review of the order dated
15.02.2000 is, therefore, without jurisdiction and cannot be
sustained. This apart the said order was an adjudication by the C.
RJD and not a mere opinion as to the seniority of the appellant
and the same holds good so long as it is not varied or altered in
accordance with law;
9. The Management of the college having entertained a doubt
regarding seniority of the appellant itself sought determination D
of the RJD in this regard and it is, therefore, not open to the
college to contend that the decision of the RJD is not binding.
Commenting on the entry in the service book, Mr. P.P. Rao
contended that the appellant is seeking seniority over the
respondent No. I on the basis of an alleged entry in her service
book by the Management that she was pro~oted as Lecturer on E
01.08.1969 and that the said entry on the face of it is fabricated
as would be evident from various factors. Furthermore, as per
established practice when the entry is made in the service book
it has to be preceded by proceedings of the approving authority
i.e. Director of Higher Education. However, the aforesaid entry p
in the service book of the appellant does not contain any
proceedings number of the approving authority. Therefore, it is
evident that the Management has manipulated the improper entry
in the service book of the appellant in collusion with the appellant.
Concluding his argument Mr. Rao submitted that the impugned

.. judgment of the Division Bench is well-considered and well-
reasoned judgment and that the present appeal is devoid of any
merit and liable to be rejected.
G

Learned counsel appearing for the College invited our attention to the
counter affidavit filed by the College in this matter. It is useful to reproduce
para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Management which reads thus: H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A "It is respectfully submitted that even if seniority is taken into
consideration, the Petitioner herein is senior to the 1st Respondent.
The College has appointed the petitioner herein on 1.8.1968 as
Demonstrator (aided) in the Department ofChemistry. On 1.8.1969
i.e. one year later the Petitioner was promoted as Lecturer in an aided
post w.e.f. 1.8.1969. The lst Respondent herein was appointed as
B Lecturer in English from 30.08.1969. There is a clear gap of one
month between the appointment of the Petitioner and the 1st
Respondent herein. It is respectfully submitted that the 1st Respondent
was reverted to the post of Jr. Lecturer from l.5.70 up to 31.8.1974.
Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the l st Respondent can be
c junior to the petitioner herein. It is pertinent to mention herein that
the petitioner had never suffered any reversion. Moreover, the
Petitioner herein was given the benefit of career advancement scheme
of 16 years and 21 years. It is respectfully submitted that because it
was always felt that the Petitioner herein should be the successor to
Shri P. Andrew, at the time when Shri P. Andrew was given the
D Principalship the Petitioner was appointed as the Vice Principal and
this decision was taken by the management of the institution
consciously as the management thought that in terms of seniority as
also the capability and efficiency, the Petitioner herein is a better
candidate. Since 13 .0 l.2000, the petitioner herein was discharging
E duties as Vice-Principal of the college and proceedings to_ this effect
have also been issued by the manager of the Andhra Evangelical
Luthern Chruch, Guntur."

The learned counsel for the Government of Andhra Pradesh drew our
attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the writ
F petition.

"The 6th respondent was appointed as demonstrator in Chemistry on
1-8-1968 in the 5th respondent college. Later, she was appointed as
lecturer in the department of Chemistry with effect from 1-8-1969 by
the principal, A.C. College Guntur vide orders dt. 1-8-1969. The
G Board of education of College of the education approved the
appointment of the 6th respondent at its meeting on 17-4-1970 vide
their minutes No. 155/22. The director of collegiate education Andhra
.
Pradesh, Hyderabad has also submitted the 6th respondent into grant-
in-aid in the audit report of the 2nd respondent for the years 1969-
70 (i.e. the year of her appointment) 1970-71 and 1971-72. The 6th
H
R.S. DEVI v. D.M. SUJATHA [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 15
"" ..._
respondent has sufficient work load i.e. 18 hours per week, on par A
with the other senior lecturers for the academic years 1969-70; 1970-
71; 1971-72; 1973-74; 1974-75 and 1975-76. By counting the service
w.e.f. 1-8-1969; the 6th respondent was awarded selection grade scale
under career advancement scheme with effect from 1-1-1986 by virtue
of completing more than 16 years of service which is the pre-requisite
condition in the A.P. revised scale (UGC) 1986. It is also submitted B
that the then special officer of A.C. College, Guntur who was also the
then regional Joint Director of Collegiate education, Guntur has
recorded the grant-in-aid certificate in the service book of the 6th
respondent to the effect that the incumbent has been working as
Lecturer in the grant-in-aid post with effect from 1-8-1969. On the c
same analogy adopted in respect of the petitioner; the 6th respondent
was entitled to the general protection as per the orders of the 2nd
respondent vide Re No. 4209/K.II.3/5, dt. 11-12-1975. Since, the 6th
respondent was appointed and worked in the grant-in-aid post of
Lecturer prior to 1-5-1971; the post of Lecturer of 6th respondent
was protected as per general protection and she was treated as Lecturer D
w.e.f. 1-8-1969 vide 3rd respondent orders No.L.Dis.No. 758/B2/
2002, dt. 15-4-2002.

The 6th respondent was never reverted to a lower post and she
was a Lecturer since 1-8-1969. On par with the petitioner, the 6th
respondent was also brought under general protection by the 3rd E
respondent vide L.Dis.No.758/B2/2002, and treated as lecturer w.e.f.
1-8-1969 as such, the 6th respondent became senior to the petitioner."

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced
by the learned counsel appearing on either side with reference to the arinexures
F
, and other relevant records and also the judgments of the learned single Judge
and of the Division Bench.

It is not in dispute that the appellant was offered the post of Lecturer
w.e.fOl.08.1969 and she accepted the same. The minutes of the Management
of the respondent-College dated 06.03.1976 shows that the appellant entered G
into service as a Lecturer w.e.f. 0 l.08.1969 which was voted to confirm as
ofOl.01.1976. In the very same minutes, it was shown that the first-respondent
herein entered into service as junior Lecturer w.e.f. 30.08.1969. Further, the
seniority list of the college, the name of the appellant was shown at sl. No.
..... 20 and it was stated that she had been working as a Lecturer in Chemistry
H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
,..._ '
A having been joined on 01.08.1969 and prior to that, she worked as
Demonstrator from Ol.08.1968 to 31.07.1969. Whereas, the first respondent
was shown at sl. No. 23 and stated that she had been working as a Lecturer
in English w.e.f. 30.08.1969. This apart, the extract of the service book of the
appellant shows that she was promoted as Lecturer w.e.f. Ol.08.1969 and
prior to that she worked as a Demonstrator. Further, the service book shows
B that the post in which the appellant was working was admitted to grant-in-
aid w.e.f. 0 l.08.1969. It was also stated in the service book that the appellant
was extended with the benefit CAS after completion of 16 years of service
vide proceedings of the RJD dated 31.01.1996 and accordingly her pay was
regulated in the post of Lecturer. It is also seen that 20 years of CAS benefit
c was also extended by the RJD through his Proceedings dated 14.09 .1999 and
the increments, salary etc. were regulated as such. Further, the President and
the Manager of the College had issued proceedings dated 12.01.2000
appointing the appellant as Vice-Principal of the College w.e.f. 12.01.2000.
At no point of time, there was any break in the service of the appellant as
a Lecturer right from 0 l.08.1969 though there was a break in the service of
D the first respondent herein. As already noticed, the appellant had also
challenged the proceedings of the respondents and filed writ petition
questioning the appointment of Mr. Andrew and withdrew the same in view
of the subsequent changed circumstances.

We have perused the proceedings dated 15.02.2000 by the RJD. It was
E
an opinion rendered at the instance of the Correspondent of the College.
Thus, it was purely an opinion rather than an administrative order and when
the appellant made a representation, the same was r~considered and a proper
opinion was rendered on 15.04.2002. Thus, in our opinion, it does not amount
to review. Further they are not quasi judicial orders passed in exercise of any
F statutory power and it does not oust the jurisdiction of the RJD to reconsider
it and pass revised order. Therefore, the submission of Mr. P.P.Rao that this
Court has to consider whether the RJD has power to review its own order and
whether such a power is conferred on such authority has no merits and
cannot be accepted. In this connection, we are in full agreement with the
arguments advanced by Mr. T.L.V. Iyer on behalf of the appellant.
G
Much arguments were advanced by Mr. P.P.Rao that because of the
audit objection the appellant was not paid the salary of the Lecturer. This
contention has no merit. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as
Demonstrator w .e.f. 01.08.1969 and she had drawn her salary as a Lecturer
from 0 l.08.1969 in an aided vacancy. It was submitted that though there was -r.-
H
R.S. DEVI v. D.M. SU.IATHA [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 17
• .A
some audit objection, but no recoveries were made against the appellant and A
she continued as Lecturer althrough.

The argument of Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the first
respondent that while issuing the modified order dated 15.04.2002 the RJD
has not issued any notice to the first respondent, cannot be accepted, since
the first respondent was nowhere in the picture at that time. In fact, the B
dispute as to seniority at that time was inter se the appellant and one Andrew
"' and the first respondent did not raise any dispute. The first respondent did not
bother as to the claim of the appellant that she is senior to Mr. Andrew. If
she was really concerned, she could have joined the issue and worked out her
remedies. The fact remains that the first respondent did not raise any objection
immediately after the order was passed on 15.04.2002 declaring the seniority
c
of the appellant in the post of Lecturer and that it should be reckoned from
• 01.08.1969. She filed writ petition only after about an year of issuance of the
said order dated 15.04.2002. Further, issuing of any notice to the first
respondent in the proceedings in G.O.Rt. No. 308 dated 22.04.2003 also does
not arise. Since the said G.O. has not altered anybody's seniority. The said D
G.O. was issued, in fact, in pursuance of a representation of the appellant
dated 13.03.2003. The first respondent, in our opinion, was not entitled for
any relief, since her right as such either under the Proceedings dated 15.02.2000
or the Order dated 15.04.2002 of the RJD was affected. Under these
circumstances, there was no necessity for the Government to issue any notice
to the first respondent while issuing the said G.O. It is true that there was
E
some audit objection but the fact remains no recoveries were made against
the appellant treating her only as demonstrator and that would in our opinion
categorically indicate that the appellant was althrough was a Lecturer in the
aided vacancy right from -01.08.1969 as such she was senior to Mr. Andrew
and was deprived of her right being promoted to the post of Principal on F
3I.01.2001 and again when the first respondent was made in charge Principal
of the College w.e.f. 01.05.2003 on retirement of Mr. Andrew. Thus, it is
seen that the appellant has suffered humiliation in view of the wrong decision
taken by the RJD earlier on 15.03.2000 which was later modified by an order
dated 15.04.2002.
G
.._
As rightly pointed out by Mr. T.L.V. Iyer that the opinion of the RJD
dated 15.02.2000 is an opinion which is non est in law since no notice has
been given to parties before passing such an order and, therefore, the
subsequent order that was passed by the RJD dated 15.04.2002 after
-·" considering all the relevant documents. Mr. Iyer is also right in contending
H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A.
A that the order dated 15.02.2000 is a nullity and, therefore, it can be ignored
by the appellant and the question of filing a review by the appellant does not
arise. When the order passed by an authority is not in accordance with law
and no notice was communicated to the party it is a nullity and need not be
challenged in a Court of law.
•
B We see merit in the submission of Mr. Iyer that an order made in
violation of natural justice is void. Mr. T.L.V. Iyer in suwort of his above
contention relied on the judgment of this Court in Krishan Lal v. State of J •
& K, [1994] 4 SCC 422, to the effect that an order passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice renders an order invalid. Likewise, an order made
c without hearing the party affected is also bad in law. In the instant case, the
order made in violation of natural justice is void.

At the time of hearing, a dispute was raised by Mr. P.P. Rao that the
appellant Sulochana Devi was not appointed as an Associate-Principal. Mr.
T.L.V. Iyer, in support of his contention, that the appellant was appointed as
-
D Associate-Principal has placed before us the extract from the minutes of the
meeting of the executive council of Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church
dated 10.01.2003 which reads thus:
i.•

"COMMITTEE ON ASSIGNMENTS: ~

E A.C. COLLEGE MATTERS:

Reported that the Board of College education send the panel of
Two names Mrs. R. Sulochana Devi and Mrs. D.M. Sujatha for the
appointment of Associate Principal for A.C. College, Guntur as Dr.
P.Andrew, Principal, A.C. College is going to be retired on 30-4-
F 2003 on superannuation.

Recommended that Mrs.· R. Sulochana Devi be appointed as
Associate Principal with immediate effect according to the verification
of their service registers. Further Mrs. R. Sulochana Devi and Mrs.
D.M. Sujatha are hereby requested to submit all the relevant papers
G along with service registers to claim their seniority and also to seek
clarification from the Commissioner for Higher Education, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad iQ connection with the appointment to the post
of Principal, A.C. College.

VOTED to approve the above recommendation of the Committee on
H Assignments."
R.S. DEVI v. D.M. SUJATHA [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 19
>-
In our view, the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with the A
discretionary power that is vested with the Management to chose the principal
of its choice. It is settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that Courts
shall be loathe in interfering with the choice of the Management in the
selection of the Principal candidate with reference to the educational institutions
under the Management of the minority institutions. As rightly contended by
Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, the learned Judges of the Division Bench is not correct in
B
giving so much sanctity for the opinion dated 15.02.2000 of RJD where it is
a violation for non-adherence to the principles of natural justice. As already
noticed, there is abundant material and evidence produced by the appellant
to show that she is a Lecturer w.e.f. 01.08.1969 and the Division Bench is
wrong in considering only audit reports to hold that she is a Lecturer only C
w.e.f. 01.04.1976. The Division Bench could have avoided in taking such a
hypertechnical view.

The appellant had been deprived of her legal entitlement as the Principal
of the College by the Management at the first instance in order to favour Mr.
P. Andrew and accommodate him. Now, even after Mr. P. Andrew's 0
retirement, the appellant was Principal for only a short time basing on the
single Judge's judgment. However, by virtue of the order passed by the
Division Bench, the Management of the College had appointed the first
respondent as Principal. In our opinion, the order passed by the Division
Bench is not correct and is, therefore, liable to be set aside and accordingly E
we do so and restore the order passed by the learned single Judge.

We were told that the appellant herein has left only about one and a
half years of service before her superannuation whereas the first respondent
will have some months thereafter after the appellant's superannuation. We,
therefore, hold that the first respondent is not entitled to hold the post of F
Principal in view of our present judgment. The appellant admittedly being
senior to the first respondent is entitled to hold the post of Principal of the
College in question till her date of retirement. We, therefore, direct the
respondents herein, namely, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the
Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the
Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Guntur and the Management G
of the College, namely, Andhra Christian College represented by its
Correspondent to immediately place her as the Principal of the Andhra
Christian College with immediate effect and at any rate not later than two
weeks from today. Since she is deprived of her lawful claim to be the Principal
of the College at the behest of the first respondent herein D.M. Sujatha, we H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A direct her to pay the cost of Rs. 5,000 to the appellant herein within two
weeks from today failing which the Andhra Christian College Management
shall pay the said amount to the appellant and adjust the same from the future
salary payable to the first respondent - D.M. Sujatha.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are thus disposed of.
B
v.s. Appeals disposed of.