Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. A perusal of Ordinance No.24 of respondent No.5- University, also called the College Code, shows that it came into effect from the Academic Session 1967-68 and under clause-3, the said Ordinance is applicable to colleges admitted to the privileges of respondent No.5-University thereby showing that it is applicable to affiliated colleges like respondent No.3-College wherein the petitioner was appointed. Schedule-A to the said Ordinance No.24 provides proforma of an agreement that such affiliated colleges are required to execute with members of its staff and copy of this proforma agreement has been annexed as 0211WP1459.15-Judgment 11/32 Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The relevant clauses of the said agreement are as follows -

5. Termination of the services of any teacher shall take place only in accordance with the provisions of the College Code Ordinance (No.24) and contract appended thereto.

0211WP1459.15-Judgment 14/32 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."

13. In this context Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Premlata Sudhakar Sathe v. Governing Body of G.S.Tompe College and others (supra) is relevant. The following question was referred to the Full Bench for consideration.

"Are the terms and conditions in the proforma of agreement under Schedule-A of Ordinance No.4 of the Nagpur University known as the College Code, binding and enforceable between the teacher and the Management even if no written contract is executed?"

While answering the said question, the Full Bench of this Court held as follows :-

"6. It is needless to say that the College Code was framed by the University to protect teachers from unscrupulous Managements from terminating their services or making appointments at their whims. The intention behind the framing of the College Code is to provide for better conditions of service to the teachers in the affiliated colleges and also to provide protection against unscrupulous removal, termination and 0211WP1459.15-Judgment 15/32 dismissal from service. If that is the intention behind the framing of the College Code, then the provisions of Chapter-V relating to the selection and appointment of teachers will have to be construed in this background. Article 33 of the College Code deals with the appointment of teachers and provides for the procedure to be followed for such appointments. By sub-article (2) of the said Article it is provided that such teachers shall be appointed on a written contract in the form prescribed in Schedule-A. The phraseology used in sub- Article (2) clearly indicates that the appointment is not contemplated in any other manner except on a written contract in the form prescribed in Schedule-A. It is not open to the parties to vary the terms of this written contract to the disadvantage of the teacher. Thus, in substance, the form prescribed in Schedule-A is a statutory form of contract and is a part and parcel of Chapter-V of the College Code itself. If that is so, then mere non-execution of the contract cannot vitiate the appointment, nor can it affect the enforceability or the binding nature of the contract itself. When applications are invited by the Management for appointment of a teacher as per the provisions of Article 38 of the College Code, it can safely be presumed that the Management intends to make the appointment of teacher subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the form prescribed by Schedule-A. Article 38(2) makes it clear 0211WP1459.15-Judgment 16/32 that such teacher can only be appointed on a written contract in the form prescribed in Schedule-A. The word "shall" is indicative of this intention. Similarly, a candidate who offers himself for appointment as a teacher on probation is also presumed to do so with the requisite knowledge of his rights and liabilities incorporated in the form of written contract prescribed in Schedule-A. If this is so, then the execution of a written contract is nothing but a mere formality. Normally a dispute or fight between an individual teacher and the Management is unequal in nature. In these circumstances, an unscrupulous employer cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong of not getting a written contract duly executed, nor a teacher can avoid his responsibility under the said contract only because he has not signed the written contract. This is case where a form of contract is prescribed by the statute and the rights and liabilities flow from this statutory contract itself. Article 38(2) will have to be read together with the Schedule-A which forms a part and parcel of the said Article of the College Code. The provisions of the College Code cannot be read in isolation divorced from the Schedule-A. The parties cannot be permitted to evade their liability under this statutory contract only because the ministerial act of signing the contract was not carried out. It is the substance of the matter which should take precedence 0211WP1459.15-Judgment 17/32 over mere form. It is well settled that a construction should be put on such provisions of law which will suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. It must be so construed as to defeat all attempts of evasion or to avoid the obligations flowing from it even indirectly or in the circuitous manner. A construction will have to be preferred which will help avoiding injustice and absurdity and a construction which will help the party to escape from the obligation or will enable him to defeat the statute or to impair the obligation of the contract by his own act or otherwise will be profited by his own wrong will have to be avoided. If two interpretations are possible, then the one which will suppress the mischief and advance the remedy will have to be preferred. The execution of the written contract is contemplated after following the procedure for selecting a candidate for appointment. After the appointment letter is issued a written contract would be executed. If this is so, the execution of a written contract is followed by the initial appointment of the teacher after following the procedure prescribed by Articles 38 and 39 of the College Code. If no option is left to the Management in the matter of appointment, then, in our opinion, the ministerial act or a formality of non-execution of the contract cannot change the substance of the contractual obligation or liabilities. By the College Code itself, a statutory form of agreement is prescribed. This means 0211WP1459.15-Judgment 18/32 that the terms and conditions of the contract are also prescribed by the statute itself. In view of this, the execution of the written contract is a mere formality and not the substance of the matter. Any infirmity or formal defect in the actual execution of the contract cannot vitiate the contract itself, nor can it rob the parties of the rights and obligations flowing from the statutory contract. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the appointment of the petitioner was not made on a temporary basis but she was appointed on probation. This being the position, the form prescribed in Schedule- A was applicable to the appointment of the petitioner and, therefore, the terms and conditions incorporated in the written contract prescribed in Schedule-A automatically become applicable to her as soon as she is appointed on probation as per the provisions of Chapter V of the College Code. This is the net result of the appointment made under Articles 38 and 39 of Chapter V of the College Code. Though it is better that a written contract should be executed by the parties in the form prescribed in Schedule-A, in our opinion, mere non- execution of the written contract cannot vitiate the appointment, nor it can rob the teacher of his rights under the agreement prescribed in Schedule-A itself."