Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of a contractual professor by the University of Kashmir. The respondent, who joined as a lecturer on contract in 1963, was appointed professor on contract in 1968. His probation was extended, but the Central Council resolved to charge-sheet him for alleged misconduct. An enquiry under the Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1965 found him guilty. On the same day the enquiry report was submitted, the Jammu and Kashmir University Ordinance, 1969 was promulgated, which created two separate universities and provided under Section 52 that contract employees ceased to hold posts after 60 days unless otherwise ordered by the Chancellor. No such order was issued. Despite this, the Vice-Chancellor allowed the respondent to continue as professor, extended probation under Section 13(4), released salary, and requested him to serve on the Academic Council. Subsequently, based on the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued, and the University Council terminated the respondent's services. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, which directed reinstatement, holding that there was an implied fresh appointment and that the enquiry lapsed. The University appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court held that only the University Council, upon recommendation of the Selection Committee under Section 36, could appoint a professor. Since neither the Selection Committee considered the respondent nor the Council appointed him, his continuation after the statutory period did not confer legal status. The doctrine of implied engagement and factum valet could not validate ultra vires administrative actions. On the second issue, the Court held that the 1969 Act did not continue or validate the enquiry commenced under the 1965 Act; therefore, the enquiry report was impermissible material for punitive termination. The termination order was declared illegal. However, because the respondent had no valid statutory appointment, the High Court's order of reinstatement was quashed. The final outcome was that the termination was illegal, but no reinstatement was granted.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Contractual Employment and Statutory Cessation - Automatic termination under Section 52(4) of Jammu and Kashmir University Ordinance, 1969 and Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1969 - Continuation beyond statutory period did not create fresh appointment because only the University Council, on recommendation of the Selection Committee under Section 36, could appoint a professor; Vice-Chancellor's actions were ultra vires and not validated by implied engagement or factum valet - Held that the respondent had no legal right to continue in post as professor absent statutory appointment; the High Court's view of implied contract was erroneous.
B) Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry and Termination - Enquiry under Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1965 lapsed upon repeal without saving provision in 1969 Act - Enquiry report could not form basis for punitive termination; show cause notice cannot legalize a lapsed enquiry - Held that the termination order passed by the University Council based on the lapsed enquiry report was illegal and liable to be declared void.
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Remedy and Reinstatement - Mandamus - Since the respondent had no valid statutory appointment, no writ of mandamus for reinstatement could issue; however, the illegal termination warranted a declaration of invalidity - Held that the High Court's order of reinstatement was quashed while the termination of service was declared illegal.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent had a right to continue in service after statutory cessation under Section 52(4) of the Jammu and Kashmir University Ordinance/Act, 1969; whether the enquiry report under the 1965 Act could lawfully form the basis for termination; whether the High Court's order of reinstatement was valid.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed: High Court's order of reinstatement was quashed; termination of the respondent's services was declared illegal. The Court held that the respondent had no legal right to continue in the post because no valid statutory appointment existed, but the termination based on the lapsed enquiry report was invalid.
Law Points
- Statutory body's powers are limited by statute
- ultra vires acts cannot be validated by implied contract or factum valet
- enquiry under repealed Act lapses absent saving provision
- termination based on invalid enquiry report is illegal
- no reinstatement without valid statutory appointment
Case Details
1973 LawText (SC) (11) 20
Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 1972
V.R. Krishna Iyer, Ranjit Singh Sarkaria
1974 AIR 238, 1974 SCR (2) 154, 1974 SCC (1) 167
F. S. Nariman, O. C. Mathur, P. C. Bhartari, T. R. Bhasin, R. L. Kohli, Ramesh Kohli
University of Kashmir and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging termination of a contractual professor's services by the University Council; appeal against High Court's order of reinstatement.
Remedy Sought
Respondent sought writ of mandamus for reinstatement and quashing of termination order; appellant University sought to set aside the High Court's order and sustain the termination.
Filing Reason
University Council terminated respondent's services based on an enquiry report; respondent challenged the termination as illegal due to lapsed enquiry and lack of valid appointment.
Previous Decisions
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in Writ Petition No. 36 of 1970 allowed the writ petition, directed reinstatement, held that an implied fresh appointment existed and that the enquiry under the 1965 Act lapsed; thereafter University appealed to Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether the respondent had a right to continue in service after statutory cessation under Section 52(4) of the Jammu and Kashmir University Ordinance/Act, 1969.
Whether the enquiry report under the Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1965 could lawfully form the basis for termination after the 1969 Act came into force.
Whether the High Court's order of reinstatement was valid given the statutory scheme of appointment.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant University argued that there was statutory cessation of the respondent's contractual service by operation of Section 52(4) of the Ordinance and Act of 1969, and therefore no right to continue existed.
Respondent contended that the facts and circumstances created an implied fresh appointment, and that the enquiry directed under the 1965 Act lapsed and could not furnish basis for punitive action.
Ratio Decidendi
When a statute creates a body and vests it with authority, circumscribing powers by specified limitations, the doctrine of implied engagement outside the statutory scheme cannot be countenanced. Continuation of a contract employee beyond the statutory cessation period does not create a valid appointment absent compliance with statutory appointment procedures. An enquiry commenced under a repealed Act lapses unless the new Act saves or validates it; a show cause notice cannot legalize such lapsed enquiry. Termination based on an invalid enquiry report is illegal. However, reinstatement cannot be ordered when the employee lacks a valid statutory appointment.
Judgment Excerpts
The University of Kashmir, the appellant, with a blurred sense of legality, issued a ukase by resolution of its Council, terminating the services of its Professor...
When a statute creates a body and vests it with authority and circumscribes the powers by specifying limitation, the doctrine of implied engagement le hors the provisions and powers under the Act would be subversive of the statutory scheme regarding appointment of officers and cannot be countenanced by the Court.
The termination of his service therefore has to be declared illegal.
the enquiry directed under the 1965 Act lapsed when the 1969 Ordinance and the Act came into force, and could not furnish the basis for punitive action against the respondent.
Procedural History
Respondent joined Jammu and Kashmir University as lecturer on contract basis in 1963; appointed Reader in September 1965; appointed Professor on contract by letter dated January 8, 1968; probation extended by Vice-Chancellor on November 11, 1968; Central Council at meeting dated June 26, 1969 resolved to charge-sheet respondent and confirmed extension; enquiry officer appointed, report submitted on September 5, 1969 holding respondent guilty; same day Jammu and Kashmir University Ordinance, 1969 promulgated; no Chancellor order extending employment; Vice-Chancellor allowed continued functioning, extended probation under Section 13(4), released salary, requested service on Academic Council; show cause notice issued December 22, 1969; respondent explained January 31, 1970; University Council on July 7, 1970 decided to terminate services paying one month's salary; respondent filed Writ Petition No. 36 of 1970 in Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Srinagar; High Court on October 26, 1971 directed reinstatement; appellant University appealed to Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1965: Section 52
- Jammu and Kashmir University Ordinance, 1969: Section 52, Section 13(4), Section 36
- Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1969: Section 52, Section 13(4), Section 36
