Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(3) That you have deliberately avoided to execute your service bond which every teacher of the institution is required to do. This non-fulfilment of the conditions of your appointment order No. FC/56-57 dated 1-7-1956 amounts to breach of the service rules of the college."

The appellant submitted explanation denying all the charges and requested the Governing Body to supply particulars on which the first charge was based. The allegation of the appellant is that be was not supplied with the required particulars and that the Governing Body terminated the services of the appellant with effect from July 1, 1960 without holding any enquiry The appeallant made a representation to the Governing Body on July 5, 1960 requesting it to reconsider the whole matter. The Governing Body rejected this representation also. The appellant thereafter moved the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh for grant of a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Governing Body dated June 30, 1960 terminating the services of the appellant, and also for the grant of a writ of mandamus reinstating the appellant to his post as a confirmed lecturer of the College. The case of the appellant was that the Governing Body had made the order of discharge in viola- tion of the provisions of Clause 8 (vi) (a) of the 'College Code' and that the order of the Governing Body was, therefore, ultra vires and illegal. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant on the ground 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. The High Court also took the view that provisions of the "College Code" were merely conditions prescribed for affiliation of colleges and no legal rights were created by the "College Code" in favour of lecturers of the affiliated colleges as against the Governing Body. In taking this view the High Court followed its previous decision in Vedraj Bhaivanidas Dua v. Damoh Arts College(1) in which it was held that the "College Code"

(f) the conditions subject to which persons may be recognised as qualified to give instruction in the University and colleges;
(g) the conduct of examinations;
(h) the term of office, duties and conditions of service of officers and teachers of the University in so far as these are, by or under this Act, subject to the Executive Council."

Section 24(i) provides that the Executive Council shall admit colleges to the privileges of the University subject to the provisions of this Act and such conditions as may be prescribed in the Statutes. The "College Code" is an Ordinance made under the provisions of s. 32 of the Act read with s. 6(6) of the Act and Clause 8 of the Ordinance deals with conditions of service of teachers of affiliated colleges. Clause 8 (vi) of the "College Code" reads as follows "8. (vi) The Governing Body of the College shall not terminate the service or reduce the pay of any teacher confirmed in the service of the college :-

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 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.

It was urged on behalf of the appellant in the next place that there was violation of the procedure prescribed in Clause 8 (vi) (a) of the "College Code' and the order of the Governing Body dated June 30, 1960 terminating the appellant's services was illegal and ultra vires and must be quashed by grant of writ in the nature of certiorari. Counsel for the respondents contended that there was no violation of the Procedure prescribed under 'Clause 8(vi)

(a) of the "College Code" and that the order of the Governing Body, dated June 30, 1960 was not defective in law. Since the question has not been investigated by the High Court we consider that it is necessary that this case should go back on remand to the High Court for deciding the question whether there was a violation of the procedure prescribed under Clause 8 (vi) (a) of the "College Code" and whether the order of the Governing Body, dated June 30, 1960 is consequently illegal and ultra vires and whether the appellant is entitled to the grant of a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution.