Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by special leave against an order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed a writ petition filed by a college lecturer challenging his termination. The appellant had joined the service of the college as a lecturer in 1946 and was promoted to Head of the Department of Zoology in 1959. Following complaints received by the Manager of the College, charges were framed against him and his explanation was called for. The Managing Committee found the explanation unsatisfactory and passed a resolution on 12-11-1967 terminating his services. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, seeking to quash the resolution on the grounds that the termination violated the Statutes framed under the Lucknow University Act, 1920 and the principles of natural justice. A learned single judge quashed the resolution, holding that the Managing Committee acted in violation of natural justice. However, a Division Bench of the High Court set aside that order and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the relationship between the College and the appellant was that of master and servant and that the remedy, if any, lay in a suit for damages and not in a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Division Bench also held that no principle of natural justice was violated because the appellant was given an opportunity to submit his explanation. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that he had a statutory status and that his services were terminated in violation of the Statutes passed under the Lucknow University Act, 1920, and therefore a writ of certiorari should lie. He also argued that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court reiterated the settled law that courts do not ordinarily enforce specific performance of a contract of service and that a declaration that the contract of service still subsisted would not be made in the absence of special circumstances. The remedy for wrongful termination is a claim for damages, not a declaration that the contract still subsisted. The Court relied on Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi and Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukh Dev Rai. It further held that Statute 151 of the Lucknow University Act, 1920 only provided that the terms and conditions mentioned therein must be incorporated in the contract between the College and the teacher. The terms did not have any legal force proprio vigore; they became terms of service only by virtue of their incorporation in the contract. Therefore, the appellant could not found a cause of action on any breach of law but only on breach of contract, for which a writ of certiorari would not lie. The Court also held that a writ lies only when the order is that of a statutory body acting in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by a statute. The College or the Managing Committee was not a statutory body, and therefore the High Court was right in dismissing the petition. Since the High Court had no jurisdiction, the Court did not go into the question of whether the appellant was given sufficient opportunity to meet the charges. The Court discussed and distinguished Prabhakar Ramkrishna Jodh v. A. L. Pande and Vidyodaya University v. Silva. The final decision was to dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the Division Bench's order.
Headnote
A) Contract of Service - Wrongful Termination and Remedies - Courts do not ordinarily enforce specific performance of contract of service and will not declare that the contract still subsisted absent special circumstances - General principles of master and servant (no specific Act relied upon) - Even if the Managing Committee wrongfully dismissed the appellant, the employment was effectively terminated and his remedy lay in a claim for damages, not in a writ or declaration that the contract still subsisted - Held that the appeal was dismissed as the appellant was confined to a suit for damages. B) Statutory Status and Terms of Service - Incorporation of Statutory Terms - Statute 151 of the Lucknow University Act, 1920 did not confer statutory status on the teacher and its terms had no legal force unless incorporated into a written contract - Lucknow University Act, 1920, Statutes 151, 152, 153 - The appellant's terms of service were contractual because they derived from the agreement, not from the statute operating proprio vigore, so a breach was of contract, not of a statutory obligation - Held that the appellant could not found a cause of action on breach of law but only on breach of contract, and hence no writ of certiorari would lie. C) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari Against Non-Statutory Bodies - A writ of certiorari lies only against a statutory body acting in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by a statute - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The College or Managing Committee in question was not a statutory body, and no mandatory statutory obligation was breached, so the High Court correctly dismissed the writ petition - Held that since the High Court lacked jurisdiction, it was unnecessary to determine whether the appellant was given sufficient opportunity to meet the charges. D) Natural Justice - Applicability to Pure Master and Servant Relationships - In a pure master and servant case, breach of audi alteram partem does not invalidate termination unless the relationship has public or statutory elements - General principles of natural justice; Lucknow University Act, 1920, Statutes 151-153 - The court referred to Ridge v. Baldwin and noted that the relationship between the appellant and the College was that of master and servant without statutory protection, so no right to be heard was available - Held that the alleged violation of natural justice did not render the termination void in the circumstances.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of certiorari lies against a non-statutory Managing Committee of an associated college for terminating a teacher's services in alleged violation of principles of natural justice; whether the appellant had a statutory status under the Lucknow University Act, 1920 and its Statutes 151, 152, 153.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Division Bench's order. The court held that the appellant's remedy was a suit for damages, not a writ, because the relationship was contractual and the College was not a statutory body.
Law Points
- Specific performance of contract of service not ordinarily granted
- remedy for wrongful termination is damages
- terms in Statute 151 have no force unless incorporated in contract
- writ of certiorari lies only against statutory bodies
- college managing committee not a statutory body
- no writ under Article 226 against non-statutory body
- pure master and servant relationship not protected by natural justice
