Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: college code in Rustamji Institute Of Technology vs Kamlish Kumar Gupta on 6 March, 2026Matching Fragments
3. Appellant/ Institute is affiliated with the "Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidhyalaya", therefore, as per submission of learned counsel for the appellant, his service conditions were governed by College Code Statute No.30 i.e. Rajiv Gandhi Proudhyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (College Code Statute), 2007. Said College Code was formulated in exercise of powers under Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1998.
4. Learned Writ Court considered the rival submissions and held that the Writ Petition preferred by respondent No.1/employee against appellant/ Institute is maintainable and on merits it is found that without holding an enquiry only on the basis of show cause notice and its reply, services of respondent No.1 were terminated and the same are stigmatic in nature, therefore, termination order was set aside and appellant/ Institute was directed to reinstate respondent No.1 on his post and liberty was granted to take action in accordance with law. Therefore, appellant/ Institute is before this Court in Writ Appeal.
10. So far as first question regarding maintainability of writ petition is concerned, position of law is discussed by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Ramkrishna Jodh Vs. A.L. Pande, 1970 MPLJ
983.St., wherein it has been held that:-
"8. 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.
9. 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 and whether the order of procedure prescribed under the 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 Article 226 of the Constitution."
16. From perusal of the aforesaid clauses of the College Code, it is clear that appellant/ Institute is an Aided institute and affiliated with the Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidhyalaya, Bhopal and service conditions of respondent No.1/ employee are governed by College Code Statute No.30 i.e. Rajiv Gandhi Proudhyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (College Code Statute), 2007. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.L. Pande (supra), writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by respondent No.1 was very well maintainable. Learned Writ Court rightly passed the impugned order and held the writ petition maintainable.