12 On the Bombay Primary Education Act Amendment Bill: 2. 30th April 1938 - Page 84

12

*ON THE BOMBAY PRIMARY EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL: 2

(Clause by clause reading)

The Honourable the Speaker: We now proceed the Bill No. XV, the Primary Education Act Amending Bill. It was, I believe, on Tuesday last that the House was considering this Bill and, when it adjourned, amendment No. 91 in the consolidated list of amendments was under discussion. That amendment was moved by the honourable member Mr. Jamnadas Mehta and it runs as follows :

The sub-clause (2) of clause 12, omit the words “and shall be servant of”.

The clause, as sought to be amended, will then read as follows : —

“(2) The Administrative Officer shall be appointed by the Provincial Government. His pay, powers and duties shall be as prescribed.”

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: May I rise to a point of order, Sir ? I am unable to understand the amendment and the purport of it. Therefore, I am rising to ask for some information on this point. The amendment is to omit the words “and shall be the servant of the Provincial Government”. Am I right ? Therefore, the purpose of the amendment seems to be this. .......

The Honourable the Speaker: The words to be omitted are “and shall be a servant of”. The words “the Provincial Government” are not sought to be omitted.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Therefore, what I understand is that he is to be appointed by the Provincial Government but is not to be the servant of the Provincial Government. My submission is that in law, even if these words were omitted, namely, “and shall be a servant of ”, he will continue to be the servant of the Provincial Government, by reason of the fact that he is allowed to be appointed by the Provincial Government. Therefore, it is rather difficult to make up one’s mind whether to vote for the amendment or against it. If the honourable mover of the amendment desires that he should continue to be appointed by the provincial Government, then the fact that he is a servant of the Provincial Government is merely the legal consequence of it, and the omission of these words would not come in the

*B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 3, pp. 2647-49, dated 30th April 1938.