Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. 1991 I C. L. R. 732 State of U. P. v. Kaushal Kishore.

3. 1992 I C. L. R. 323 Governing Council v. Dr. Pandurang.

4. State of U. P. v. Bhoop Singh.

5. Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Mohd. S. I. S. Kadir.

6. State of U. P. & Anr. v. Premlata Misra (Km) & Ors.

17. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand has contended before us that the instant writ petition is infructuous, because after reinstatement, the departmental enquiry is started against the respondent No. 2 on 4-1-1992 as per the decision taken by the managing Committee of the Petitioner society in its Meeting held on 21-9-1991. He has then urged that according to clause 3 of Appendix A to the Statute No. 8 of 1979 framed under the Amravati University Act, 1983, all appointments of Principals of Colleges are to be made by a Selection Committee, composed of the Members mentioned therein and the recommendations of the Selection Committee are subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor who can reject its recommendations after recording the reasons therefor. According to hi, the above provision in clause 3 of Appendix A in Statute 8 of 1979 has superseded the provision in that regard in Clause 2 of the College Code Ordinance No. 24 which provides that the Principal of the College shall be appointed by the Foundation Society. He has further submitted that the Managing Committee had actually no role to play in the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as the Principal of the college and after his selection by the Selection Committee, his appointment was communicated to him by the President of the Local Managing Committee. In fact, according to him, the Petitioner had failed to produce any Resolution by which the Managing Committee had made his appointment as the Principal of the College. Further, according to hi, the validity of his appointment was not challenged by the Petitioner Society according to which both the appointment and the termination of the respondent No. 2 was validly made.

18. As regards the question of termination of service of any teacher, it is urged on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that it is governed according to the relevant provisions of the College Code Ordinance No. 24 which is made applicable by Statute No. 53 of the Amravati University. It is his case that it is the Governing Body, which according to him, means the Local Managing Committee, which has power to pass the orders of termination of the services of the teacher after complying with the provisions of the said College Code Ordinance No. 24. Since, the Local Managing Committee has not considered the question of termination of service of the respondent No. 2, it is urged that his order of termination of service is illegal and invalid. Even otherwise, it is urged that it clause 29 of the College Code Ordinance No. 24 does not stand superseded by clause 3 of Appendix A to Statute No. 8 of 1979, as hereinbefore shown since the Foundation Society, which is the governing Body of the petitioner society and is larger than its Managing Committee and which is the Appointing Authority of the Principal under the aforesaid clause 29 of the College Code Ordinance No. 24 has not considered the question of termination of service of the respondent No. 2, the said termination of his service is illegal and invalid.

8. Malti Damaji v. C. E. O. Z. P. Nagpur (1976 Mh. L. J. 109).

9. K. P. Kamble v. C. E. O. Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, (1976 Mh. LJ. Nagpur Notes of Cases 2).

10. Miss Ratna v. Indian Institute of Technology. 1973 (2) SLR 673.

11. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab 1983 (46) FLR 407 S. C.

21. In appreciating the rival contentions we may first deal with the question whether clause 3 of Appendix A to the Statute No. 8 of 1979 has superseded clause 29 of the College Code Ordinance No. 24 regarding the appointing authority of the Principal of an affiliated college being its foundation society. It is not in dispute that the College Code Ordinance No. 24 framed by the Nagpur University continued and continues to apply to the colleges affiliated to the Amravati University after it was established under the Amravati University Act, 1983. It is true that in the absence of any provision to the contrary, the foundation society which is the appointing authority for the Principal of a college will have authority to terminate his services also.

24. It is then necessary to see that as regards the question of termination of service of the respondent No. 2, the relevant clause No. 5 of Statute No. 53, which has come into force from 2-1-1978, on which date it received the assent of the Chancellor shows the termination of services of any teacher has to take place only in accordance with the provisions of the College Code Ordinance No. 24 and the contract appended thereto. It has to be seen that the expression teacher used in clause 5 of the aforesaid Statute No. 53 includes the Principal as per the definition of the said word given in clause 3(ii) of the said statute No. 53. It is however, not clear either from clause 5 of Statute 53 or the provisions of the Contract appended to the College Code Ordinance No. 24 as to who the competent authority is to terminate the services of the teacher. The competent authority, therefore, would be the Appointing Authority. However, as regards the said question, it is not necessary for us to decide the said question finally or to express any views finally, upon the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties, viz, whether the Foundation Society, the Selection Committee, the Managing Committee or whether the Local Managing Committee being the Appointing Authority is the authority to terminate the services of the petitioner, since in our view, the impugned order of termination is punitive in nature, and could not have been passed without holding a departmental enquiry and without giving opportunity to the respondent No. 2 to defend the charges levelled against him.