Appeal No321 of 1957
456 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 13 1956 of the Assam High Court in Civil Rule No 80 of 1955
Ranadeb Chaudhury and D N Mukherjee for the appellant
N CChatterjee and Naunit Lal for respondents Nos 2 and 3
Naunit Lal for respondent No 1 1958
April 7
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J This is an appeal by special leave brought by J K Chaudhuri for and on behalf of the Governing Body of Guru Charan College Silchar which will be referred to in this judgment as the College against a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature in Assam dated June 13 1956 dismissing the appellant s petition under article 226
It raised the question as to the nature and extent of the jurisdiction of the Executive Council of the University of Gauhati in regard to disciplinary action taken by the Governing Body of the College against its Principal R K Datta Gupta respondent No 1
In 1937 respondent No I was appointed Professor of Mathematics in the college
He was appointed Vice Principal in 1947 and Principal in 1950
Due to certain representations made to the Governing Body against respondent No 1 a committee was appointed by the Governing Body to enquire into the allegations
This committee held several sittings and made a report after considering which the Governing Body held a prima facie case made out against him placed him under suspension and called upon him to answer the charges within 15 days
This he failed to do but later on submitted an explanation which was duly considered
As fresh material was disclosed after the suspension respondent No1 was called upon to give a further explanation
He then requested for the previous charges being decided before enquiry into fresh charges was made
The Governing Body held a meeting on November 1 1953 and after considering 457 the matter found him guilty of moral turpitude and dishonesty and also gross negligence of duty inefficiency and insubordination and ordered his dismissal as Principal and Professor of Mathematics of the college
r On November 30 1953 respondent No I filed a suit being Title Suit No 282 of 1953 in the Court of Munsif Sadar Silchar challenging the legality of the proceedings of the committee appointed by the Governing Body and of the proceedings and decision taken by it and prayed for an injunction restraining the Governing Body from appointing another Principal
He also applied for a temporary injunction
This suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge U A D at Silchar and was renumbered as Title Suit No 10 of 1954 which has not yet been decided
On November 11 1953 respondent No I made a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the Gauhati University against his dismissal and prayed that the Governing Body be directed not to fill up the post of Principal pending the disposal of his appeal which was filed on November 30 1953 and which was a reiteration of the allegations made by him in the plaint in the suit in the Court of Munsif Sadar
The Executive Council of the University i e respondent No 2 thereupon appointed under para
3h of the Statutes framed under section 21g of the Gauhati University Act Assam XV1 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act a committee respondent No 3 consisting of the Vice Chancellor the Director of Public Instruction and the Legal Remembrance of the State of Assam to report on the propriety of the action taken
After considering the matter and giving full opportunity to both sides respondent No 3 on March 30 1955 made a report to respondent No 2 that  there was no reasonable ground justifying the dismissal of Shri R K Datta Gupta from the post of the Principal Guru Charan College Silchar
 On April 201955 this report was accepted by respondent No 2 and it passed the following resolution    
Resolved that the findings of the Committee be accepted and in view of the facts that Sri R K Datta Gupta was not dismissed on any 458 reasonable grounds the Governing Body be directed to reinstate him before 31st July 1955
 Against this order the Governing Body of the college filed a petition under article 226 in the High Court of Assam but the petition was dismissed on June 131956
Although in the High Court the appellant challenged the power of the University to interfere with the decision of the Governing Body of the college removing respondent No I both from Principalship and from Professorship of Mathematics in this Court the arguments were confined to the former only
The two categories it was submitted were distinct and were dealt with in the Act and the Statute made thereunder separately
The Principal was merely the administrative head of the College and a teacher solely engaged in imparting instructions
The Act therefore contemplates their discharging different functions
To support this contention various provisions of the Act and the Statutes made under the Act were referred to
The words  Principal  and  Teacher  are defined in section 2 of the Act   2 h I Principal  means the head of a College and includes where there is no Principal the person for the time being duly appointed to act as Principal and in the absence of the Principal a Vice Principal duly appointed as such
       2k Teacher  includes Professors Readers Lecturers and other persons imparting instructions in the University or in any College or Hall The distinction finds further support from other provisions of the Act which maintain a clear distinction between a Principal  and a  Teacher 
Section 9 of the Act deals with the constitution of the Court which has three classes of members Ex Officio members Life Members and Other Members
Principals fall under class I and are mentioned in sub section
vii
Teachers come under the heading I Other Members  enumerated in class 111
In sub section
xiv representation is given to Teachers  elected from their own body who are not Professors or Readers of the University
459 Similarly in the constitution of the Executive Council contained in section 12 a distinction is maintained between Principals who are in class 1 i e Ex officio members and Professors of the University who are in class 11 i e Other members
Amongst the former have to be included two Principals of recognised colleges elected from their own body and in Class 11 representation is given to Professors of the University and none to the teachers
Therefore wherever the provisions of the Act mention the word a Principal  or a Teacher  two distinct entities are indicated and one is not to be included in the other
The Statutes made under section 21g of the Act also maintain this distinction in their various clauses and where the word principal  occurs it is used in its distinctive and restrictive sense and where the word I teacher  or the phrase member of the teaching staff  or any other similar word or phrase is used the reference is to a teacher and not to a principal
Clause I of the Statute requires the existence of a Governing Body for each college not maintained by the University
Clause 2 a gives its constitution which includes the Principal and the Vice Principal as ex officio members and so also two representatives of the teaching staff to be elected annually showing that a Principal as such is distinct from a member of the teaching staff which must necessarily mean employees of colleges engaged in the teaching of various subjects
Clause 2 c nominates the Principal as the Secretary of the Governing Body
Sub cls
a b c and d of el
3 deal with a teacher s appointment pay scales of pay probation and period of appointment
Sub el
e deals with increments
It provides  An increment according to the pay scale will be drawn as a matter of course   
The increment may be withheld on the ground of unsatisfactory work of an employee     The word employee  here must necessarily refer to a teacher because it provides for increments according to pay scales and the withholding of increments for unsatisfactory work of an employee dealt with in the first four sub clauses which in terms apply to a teacher
460 Sub cl
f deals with the period of service
Sub cls i and ii are as follows  i The services of a permanent employee shall not be determined except on reasonable grounds
ii The services of a permanent employee shall not be terminated in the course of an academic session except on very special grounds such as moral turpitude proved incapacity and inefficiency
If the Governing Body of a college considers it advisable that the services of a permanent employee should be terminated on any of the grounds mentioned in clause g ii the matter shall be forthwith reported to the Executive Council 
The use of the phrase academic session  indicates that the Permanent employee  must be a person connected with teaching for otherwise it lacks meaning
The language of sub cl
g iii which is as follows A teacher whose services are dispensed with on grounds other than those mentioned in clause g ii shall be paid compensation equal to as many months  pay as the number of completed years of his service subject to a maximum of twelve months  pay  further supports this interpretation that a permanent employee  mentioned in sub el
g ii refers to a teacher and to no one else
This is further strengthened by the use of the word teacher  in sub cl
g iv which provides for the procedure for an enquiry where a teacher has to be dismissed suspended or reduced in pay
Sub cl
g v reserves to the Executive Council of the University the power to enquire into causes of dismissal of a teacher whether on its own motion or on an appeal by the teacher
Sub el
h which is in the following words All cases of dismissal suspension or any other serious grievance of the teaching staff will be considered by a Committee of the following members uses the words  teaching staff  and this again shows that the reference is to the teacher and not to a Principal because el 3 taken as a whole clearly deals with the conditions of service of a teacher compensation to be paid to him and the procedure to be followed 461 in cases of disciplinary action taken against him
These words cannot in the context in which they appear in the Statutes or in the context of the language of the Act itself have reference to anybody other than a member of the teaching staff i e teacher
It shows therefore that in cl 3 of the Statute where the expression used is  permanent employee  or the teacher or  teaching staff  the reference is to members of the college who are teachers as such and it hag no application to any other employee of the college such as a Principal
Deka J was of the opinion that as respondent No I held two capacities that of the Principal and membership of the teaching staff respondent No 2 could order his restoration to both the offices because the two capacities could not be separated
As shown above the two capacities are distinct with separate functions and have been separately dealt with in the Act and the Statutes under the Act and the learned judge was in error in holding otherwise
Sarjoo Parshad C J gave to the phrase I permanent employee  used in the Statutes an extended meaning so as to include a Principal as well as a college teacher
This again is an interpretation which is contrary to the interpretation which stems from the analysis we have given above and is therefore erroneous
Relying on sub el 3h of the Statutes counsel for respondent No 2 contended that as respondent No I was a so a member of the teaching staff being a Professor of Mathematics his case fell within the wordsor any other serious grievance of the teaching staffThese words refer to grievances which a memberof the teaching staff may have in his capacity of ateacher and not in any other capacity and these words cannot be extended to include the grievances of a teacher in connection with something which is dehors the words of the clause and would not therefore include his grievances which he may have if he is also the Principal
As has been pointed out above the relevant provisions of the Act and of the Statutes made under 59 462 s21g of the Act show the separate capacities of the Principal and the Teacher
The jurisdiction of respondent No 2 to interfere with the action taken by the Governing Body arises only in the case of a teacher and would not extend to a case where the same person holds these two offices as there is no provision in the Act or the Statutes giving the University such power to interfere
Consequently so far as Respondent No 2 interfered with the action taken by the Governing Body against respondent No 1 in his capacity as the Principal of the college it acted without jurisdiction and therefore that part of the order of respondent No 2 and the judgment of the High Court to that extent cannot be sustained and must be set aside as respondent No 2 there acted in excess of jurisdiction
We would therefore allow this appeal modify the order of the High Court and hold that the order of respondent No 2 in regard to respondent No I qua his office as Principal was without jurisdiction and the order of reinstatement of respondent No 1 by the University to the post of Principal must be set aside
As the special leave was directed against the judgment of the High Court both in regard to the office of Principal and the office of teacher of the college and it was at the stage of arguments that the case was confined to the  Principal  of the college the proper order for costs should be that the parties do bear their own costs in this Court as well as in the High Court
Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellants owned an industrial concern and sought aid from the State Government under the Mysore State Aid to Industries Act 1951 with a view to improve the industry and develop it further
An application for aid was made to the concerned authorities and the competent authority granted the financial assistance by way of loan
This financial assistance was secured from the Bank of Mysore and the State Government agreed to stand as surety and also to guarantee the repayment of the loan with interest to the Bank
The appellants who received the aid executed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of the State Government of their proper ties in consideration of their promise to guarantee the repayment of the loan
The State Government in turn executed a deed of guarantee in favour of the Bank
The appellants in addition also executed a promote in favour of the Bank agreeing to repay the said sum with interest
The appellants were not in a position to pay the loan within the stipulated period as the concern had become financially unsound
The State Government started compelling the appellants to pay off the loan to the Bank and as it was not paid the State Government got the properties of the appellant sold under the proceedings for recovery of land revenue and got the money recovered
The appellants filed a civil suit and contended that the sale of the properties was without the authority of law and that the money could only be recovered from the appellant if the State Government had paid the loan of the Bank first and even thereafter the only course open to the State Government was to file a suit for reimbursement on the basis of the mortgage
109 The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the order was confirmed by the High Court in appeal
The Trial Court and the High Court came to the conclu sion that the Government of Karnataka was entitled to recov er the amount which they secured as an aid to the respond ents under the scheme of the Act and for that purpose law fully resorted to the sale of the properties by following the procedure of recovery of arrears of land revenue as provided for in Section 19 of the Act
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the view taken by the High Court that if any sum was payable under the Act the State Government could take steps under Section 19 of the Act was not justi fied
Dismissing the Appeal HELD 1
The scheme of the Mysore State Aid to Indus tries Act 1951 indicate that whether the aid has been provided for by the State or has been secured by the State from other financial agencies it was contemplated that the State would secure the repayment of the loan or recovery of whatever aid was given and with a view to secure those repayments Section 19 was specifically enacted
113D E 2
Legislature in its wisdom therefore did not use the words payable to the State  but used all moneys payable under this Act  in the Section it appears with a clear intention that whenever money becomes payable which was secured to the industry under the scheme of the Act it will be open to the State Government to follow the procedure for recovery as has been provided for in clause 1 of Section 19
113E F 3
It is only in respect of the moneys payable under the scheme of this Act that section 191 comes into operation and it appears that it was in accordance with the scheme of the Act that the Legislature in its wisdom chose not to use the further phrase payable to the Government under Section 191
114B section Peer Mohammed vs B Mohan Lal Sowcer 1988 2 SCC 513 referred to