Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Under the circumstances the plea of the respondents is meritless.

In Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh v. A.L. Pande and Anr., [1965] 2 SCR 713 a question arose whether the provisions of ordinance 20 otherwise called the College Code framed by the University of Saugar under Section 32 and Section 6(6) of the University of Saugar Act, 1946 embodying the terms and conditions of teachers of the College affiliated to the University, have the force of law. It was held that: "The provisions of Ordinance 20 i.e. the College Code "

have got statutory force. It confers legal rights on the teachers on 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 PG NO 452 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 from prescribed in Sch. A but that does not mean that teachers have merely a contractual remedy against the Governing 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. ' In the case of Manmohan Singh Jaitla v. Commissioner, U. T. of Chandigarh and Ors., [1984] (Supp) SCC 540 the appellant was appointed as Head Master of an aided School. He was later confirmed by the competent authority. A charge- sheet was served on the appellant and disciplinary enquiry was held against him under section 3 of the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act. The enquiry was however, withdrawn later on and his seven years service was terminated by invoking the service agreement on ground that his service was no more required by the School. This order was challenged by a writ petition before the High Court which rejected the same in limine but by a speaking order observing that as the School cannot be said to be 'other authority' under Article 12, it was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court negatived the said finding of the High Court and held as follows: