Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Under Ordinance No. 24 - the College Code, it is the Governing Body or the local Managing Committee of a college which alone is the appointing authority of a teacher in an affiliated college. Under the circumstances, only the said appointing authority could terminate the services. The Chairman had no authority whatsoever to issue order of termination. Basically, therefore, the order of termination was illegal. It is the case of the petitioner that by resolution of the Governing Body dated 5th August 1985 (i.e., four months subsequent to filling of appeals before the College Tribunal) the action of the Chairman was ratified. What is the effect of that ratification has been a matter of controversy before us. Masish's case (supra), which dealt with Ordinance No. 24 and nearly a similar point about ratification by the Governing Body of the order of termination by the Chairman, has held, relying on various principles/provisions in general and Section 200 of the Indian Contract Act in particular that the act of the Chairman was void ab-initio, which was not ratifiable in the view of Section 200 of the Indian Contract Act and illustration (b) to that Section. Section 200 reads thus :

10. An affidavit has been filed before us now by the petitioner that the appointment was made by the Chairman and hence the very appointment was illegal. It is not possible to entertain this point of fact for the first time at the fag end of the case. In this connection useful reference may be made to Section 230(3) of the Contract Act which deals with ratification of contract. The Governing Body has paid salaries and other emoluments to the lecturers and had all through treated them as validly appointed employees. Under the circumstances, as held in the case of Chaturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram and others and the case of Union of India v. Jyotimoyee Sharma (1969-I-LLJ-290) the appointments would not be termed as illegal and contract of employment held to be enforceable. Our attention was invited on behalf of the petitioners to the case of Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. The Union of India in which provisions of Section of 286 and 290 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 fell for consideration. It is held that the resolution passed at an invalid meeting terminating the services of a General Manager can be validated by a regularly constituted meeting. The said decision was rendered in altogether different background and hence its ratio will have no application to the present matter. It is pertinent to notice that it is not a case where the provisions of the College Code and so also Section 200 of the Contract Act fell for consideration. Under the circumstances, it seems to us that no case for reviewing of our decision on the point exists.

11. This takes us to the last point-is termination bad for want of prior approval of the Executive Council in view of Statute 53, which has received the assent of the Chancellor on 2nd January 1978. Before Statute No. 53 was brought into force, there was no deemed confirmation of probationary teachers in affiliated colleges. Statute 53 is a Statute providing for confirmation of teachers working in affiliated colleges. Clause 4 provides for deemed confirmation. Every teacher appointed in a clear vacancy has to be appointed in the first instance on probation for for two years at the end of which he shall be confirmed. His services can be dispensed with provided atleast a month before expiry of probationary period notice is given, in the absence of which it shall be construed that he has completed the period of probation satisfactorily and that he is confirmed. Clause 5 provides that termination of services of any teacher shall take place only in accordance with the provisions of the College Code. The provision reads thus :

"Provided that, in case of a teacher, who is already confirmed prior to the commencement of this Statute or in case of a teacher covered by para 4 above, no notice of termination shall be issued or termination made effective, without the prior approval of the Executive Council of Nagpur University."

By this proviso for the first time prior approval of the Executive Council before termination of a college teacher is made mandatory. No such provision existed before either in the Nagpur University Act or the Statutes or Ordinances framed thereunder. Crucial question is, is this mandate intended to be applied also in the case of probationer whose services are sought to be terminated before he is confirmed. Previous to 2nd January 1978 the subject was governed by Agreement in Schedule-A of the College Code - Ordinance No. 24. The said agreement provided for initial probation period of one year, which was extendable. The clause 8 of the Agreement reads thus :