Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. In Vidya Ram's case (supra) an earlier judgment of the Apex Court reported in Prabhakar Ramkrishna Jodh's case (supra) was cited. It is relevant to notice the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Prabhakar Ramkrishna Jodh's case (supra), which was the judgment delivered by a four Judge Bench. In the above case, the appellant was working as the Lecturer in S.B.R.College, which was affiliated under the University of Saugar Act, 1946. The appellant's services were terminated, against which order, a Writ Petition was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing the termination order. The appellant's case was that termination of the appellant was in violation of the provisions of Clause 8(vi)(a) of the College Code, hence the order was ultra vires and illegal. The High Court rejected the application and held that the services of the appellant were not governed by the College Code, but by the contract made between the governing body and the appellant. Hence, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution was not available and proper recourse for the petitioner was to bring the suit in the Civil Court. Against the judgment of the High Court, an appeal was filed before the Apex Court. The Apex Court noted that the College Code has been made by the University in exercise of statutory power and the College Code have force of law. The Apex Court held that the College Code confers legal rights in favour of the teacher and the view taken by the High Court is erroneous. It is useful to quote the following observation of the High Court:

"It is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that the "College Code" has been made by the University in exercise of statutory power conferred by s.32 and under s.6(6) of the Act. It is also conceded on behalf of the respondents that the "College Code" is intra vires of the powers of the University contained in s.32 read with s.6(6) of the Act. In our opinion, the provisions of Ordinance 20, otherwise called the "College code" have the force of law. It confers legal rights on the teachers of the affiliated colleges and it is not a correct proposition to say that the "College Code" merely regulates the legal relationship between the affiliated colleges and the University alone. We do not agree with the High Court that the provisions of the "College Code"

constitute power of management. On the contrary we are of the view that the provisions of the "College Code" relating to the pay scale of teachers and their security of tenure properly fall within the statutory power of affiliation granted to the University under the Act. It is true that Clause 7 of the Ordinance provides that all teachers of affiliated colleges shall be appointed on a written contract in the form prescribed in Sch. A but that does not mean that teachers have merely a contractual remedy against the Government Body of the College. On the other hand, we are of opinion that the provisions of Clause 8 of the Ordinance relating to security of the tenure of teachers are part and parcel of the teachers' service conditions and, as we have already pointed out, the provisions of the "College Code" in this regard are validly made by the University in exercise of the statutory power and have, therefore, the force and effect of law. It follows, therefore, that the "College Code" creates legal rights in favour of teachers of affiliated colleges and the view taken by the High Court is erroneous."

"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 Curt 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 said.