Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In Jodh's case it was held by the Supreme Court that Clause 8 (vi) (a) of the College Code (Ordinance 20) framed by the University requiring the Governing Body of the College not to terminate the service of any teacher confirmed in the service of the college without following the procedure mentioned therein despite the fact that the teachers of the colleges were duly appointed on a written contract, conferred .a legal right on the teachers of the affiliated colleges. The argument that the college Code merely regulated the legal relationship between the affiliated colleges and the University and it imposed only contractual terms and conditions of service was repelled. In Vidyaram Misra's case the Supreme Court found that on a plain reading of Statute 151 of Lucknow University it was manifest That all the terms and conditions of service of a teacher must be incorporated in the contract to be entered into between the college and the teacher concerned and did not say that the terms and conditions have any legal force without being embodied in an agreement, therefore, without the contract they had no vitality or conferred any legal right. The learned Judges emphasised more than once in the course of their judgment that Statutes did not specify any procedure for removal of a teacher independently of the contract and the terms and conditions mentioned in Statute 151 had no efficacy unless they were incorporated in a contract. Thus two principles of law emerge from the decisions of the Supreme Court in, Jodh's case and Vidyaram Misra's case; (1) Where any provisions of an Act, Statute or Ordinance relating to the conditions of affiliation of colleges to a University on their own force, that is, proprio vigore are enforceable, no matter the teacher of the affiliated college is required to be appointed under a written contract he will have an enforceable right entitling him to declaration of statutory in validity of any action taken against him in violation of such provisions affecting his employment and; (2) Where the University Act, Statutes or Ordinances relating to affiliation of colleges to a University require certain specified terms and conditions to be incorporated in a written contract to be jentered into between the Management of the affiliated college and its teacher at the time of appointment, and nothing else remains affecting the conditions of service which is not wholly governed by the contract, then anything done by the Management of the affiliated college adversely affecting the teacher in respect of his employment would amount only to a breach of contract actionable in damages.

27. The problem, therefore, in the cases before us reduces to this: Whether Sub-section (1) of Section 25-C and the relevant Statutes contained in Chapter XVIII of the Statutes of Agra University relating to the terms and conditions of affiliation require the provisions of Statute 30 and the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 25-C of the Agra Act to be incorporated in the written contract? Do they indicate that the same would not have any legal force unless a written contract containing such terms and conditions was executed? That is to say, whether Statute 30 and Sub-section (2) of Section 25-C of the Agra Act have the same character as Clause 8 (vi) (a) of the College Code framed under the University of Saugar Act conferring an enforceable legal right on the teacher or are they merely in the nature of terms and conditions required to be incorporated in the written contract?

"I! is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that the "College Code" has been made by the University in exercise of iU Statutory power conferred by Section 32 and under Section 6 (6) of the Act. It is also conceded on behalf of the respondents that the College Code is not ultra vires of the powers of the University contained in Section 32 and Section 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 right on the teachers of affiliated colleges and it is not the correct proposition to say that the College Code merely regulates the legal relationship between the affiliated colleges and th 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 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 prov ides that all teachers of affiliated colleges shall be appointed on a written contract in the form prescribed Sd. 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 arc 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 teacher's 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."

111. The case of ((1965) 2 SCR 713), was of a teacher in a college affiliated to the University of Saugar and managed by the Governing Body established under the provisions of 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. He submitted his explanation denying 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. Jodh moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ quashing the order of the Governing Body and for his reinstatement, contending 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. The High Court held that the conditions of service of Jodh were not governed by the "College Code" but by the contract made between him and the Governing Body and therefore, dismissed the petition. On appeal to the Supreme 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 college. It was observed by the Supreme Court :