Case: Vidya Ram Mishra Vs. Managing Committee, Jai Narain College &amp; Another

1. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, challenging the validity of a resolution passed on 12-11-1967 by the Managing committee of the Jai Narain College, Lucknow, formerly known as Kanyakubja Degree College, an associated college of the Lucknow University, terminating his services, and praying for issue of an appropriate writ or order quashing the resolution. A learned single Judge of that Court, finding that in terminating the services, the Managing Committee acted in violation of principles of natural justice, quashed the resolution and allowed the writ petition. The Managing Committee appealed against the order. A Division Bench of the High Court found that the relationship between the College and the appellant was that of master and servant and that even if the service of the appellant has been terminated in breach of the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice, the remedy of the appellant was to file a suit for damages and not to apply under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ or order in the nature of certiorari and that in fact no principle of natural justice was violated by terminating the services of the appellant as the appellant was given an opportunity of submitting his explanation to the charges. The Bench, therefore set aside the order of the learned single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. It is from this judgment that the appeal has been preferred by special leave2. The appellant joined the service of the college as lecturer in 1946. He was promoted to the post of Head of the Department of Zoology in 1959. On the basis of certain complaints against him received by the Manager of the College, charges were framed against him and his explanation was called for. He submitted an explanation. The explanation was found not to be satisfactory and the Managing Committee passed a resolution on 12-11-1967 for removal of the appellant from service. As already stated, this was the resolution challenged by the appellant in the writ petition.

Reasoning:
9. Mr. Setalvad contended that since the college in question is affiliated to a statutory body, namely, the University of Lucknow, and is governed by the relevant statutes and ordinances framed under the provisions of Lucknow University Act, 1920, any violation of the statute or the ordinance in the matter of terminating the services of a teacher would attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as statutes and ordinances have the force of law. In support of this, counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh v. A. L. Pande, (1965) 2 SCR 713.   The appellant before this Court in that case was a teacher in a college affiliated to the University of Saugar and managed by the Governing Body established under the provisions of the relevant ordinance made under the University of Saugar Act. Certain charges were framed against the appellant by the Principal of the College and he was asked to submit his explanation. The appellant in his explanation denied all the charges and requested for particulars on which one of the charges was based. The particulars were not supplied and the Governing. Body terminated his services without holding any enquiry. The appellant moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ quashing the order of the Governing Body and for his reinstatement. He contended that the Governing Body had made the order in violation of the provisions of Ordinance 20, otherwise called the College Code, framed under section 32 of the University of Saugar Act read with section 6 (6) of that Act. Clause 8 (vi) (a) of the college Code provided that the Governing body of the college shall not terminate the services of a confirmed teacher without holding an enquiry and without giving him an opportunity of defending himself. The High Court held that the conditions of service of the appellant were governed not by the College Code but by the contract made between the Governing Body and the appellant under clause 7 of the College Code-which stated that all teachers of the college shall be appointed under a written contract in the form prescribed-that the provisions of the College Code were merely conditions prescribed for affiliation of colleges and that no legal rights were created by the college Code in favour of the teachers of the affiliated Colleges as against the Governing Body. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the petition. In appeal to this Court it was held that the College Code had the force of law and that it not merely regulated the legal relationship between the affiliated colleges and the University but also conferred legal rights on the teachers of affiliated colleges. The Court further said10. In the case in hand, the position is entirely different. The relevant statutes governing this case are statutes 151, 152 and 153, framed under the provisions of the Lucknow University Act, 1920. Statute 151 provides that teachers of an Associated College including the principal shall be appointed on written contract and that the contract shall inter alia provide the conditions mentioned therein in addition to such other conditions not inconsistent with the Act and the Statutes as an Associated College may include in its own form of agreement. Then the conditions as regards salary, age of retirement, etc., are enumerated. The statute then goes on to specify the grounds on which a teachers services can be terminated. Statute 152 states that the form of agreement to be adopted by each college shall be approved by the executive Council before it is put in force. Statute 153 provides for a form of agreement which shall serve as a model. It may be noted that statute 151 does not provide for any particular procedure for dismissal or removal of a teacher for being incorporated in the contract. Nor does the model form of contract lay down any particular procedure for that purpose. The appellant had entered into an agreement when he was employed in the college. Clause 5 of the agreement provided that:"the period of probation shall be one year unless extended by the Managing Committee and the College may at any time during the said period of probation put an end to this engagement, or if service shall continue beyond the said term, at any time thereafter, dispense with the services of the said Lecturer without notice, if the Managing Committee of the said College is satisfied that it is necessary to remove the said Lecturer for misconduct, insubordination or habitual neglect of duty on the part of the said Lecturer or in case any of the conditions herein specified have been broken by the said Lecturer provided that an opportunity is given to him by the said Managing Committee to give his explanation before a decision is arrived at."