Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

326

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 Cod&-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 "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........" When once this Court came to the conclusion that the 'College Code' had the force of law and conferred rights on the teachers of affiliated colleges, the right to challenge the order terminating the services of the appellant, passed in violation of clause 8 (vi) (a) of the 'College Code' in a proceeding under Article 226 followed 'as the night the day' and the fact that the appellant had entered into a contract was considered as immaterial.

Whereas in the case of Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh v. A. L. Pande and another(1), the terms and conditions of service embodied in clause 8 (vi) (a) of the 'College Code' had the force of law apart from the contract and conferred rights on the appellant there, here the terms and conditions mentioned in Statute 151 have no efficacy, unless they are incorporated in a contract. Therefore, appellant cannot found a cause of action on any breach of the law but only on the breach of the contract. As already indicated, Statute 151 does not lay down any procedure for removal of a teacher to be incorporated in the contract; So, clause 5 of the contract can, in no event, have even a statutory flavor and for its breach, the appellant's remedy lay elsewhere. Besides, in order that the third exception to the general rule that no writ will lie to quash an order terminating a contract of service, albeit illegally, as stated in S. R. Tewari v. District Board, Agra(2) might apply, it is necessary that the order must be the order of a statutory body acting in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by a statute. The college, or the Managing Committee in question, is not a statutory body and so the argument of Mr. Setalvad that the case in hand will fall under the third exception cannot be accepted. The contention of counsel that this Court has sub silentio sanctioned the issue of a writ under Article 226 to quash an order terminating services of a teacher passed by a college similarly situate in Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh v. A. L. Pande and another(1), and, therefore, the fact that the college or the managing committee was not a statutory body was no hindrance to the High Court issuing the writ prayed for by the appellant has no merit as this Court expressly stated in the judgment that no such contention was raised in the High Court and so it cannot be allowed to be raised in this Court. In this view of the matter, it is quite unnecessary to go into the question whether the appellant was given sufficient opportunity to meet the charges against him. We hold that the High Court was right in its view that the writ petition was incompetent. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal but, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.