Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the appellant, a confirmed lecturer in Sanskrit at S.B.R. College, Bilaspur, which was affiliated to the University of Saugar and managed by a Governing Body established under Clause 3 of the College Code. The appellant challenged an order dated June 30, 1960 by which the Governing Body terminated his services with effect from July 1, 1960. He alleged that the termination was made without holding any enquiry, in violation of Clause 8(vi)(a) of the College Code, and that he was not supplied the requested particulars for one of the charges. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the conditions of service of the appellant were governed by contract, not by the College Code, and that the College Code merely prescribed conditions for affiliation, creating no legal rights in favour of teachers against the Governing Body. The High Court followed its earlier decision in Vedraj Bhawanidas Dua v. Damoh Arts College, 1961 M.P.L.J. 239. The Supreme Court framed the main question as whether the College Code merely prescribed conditions for affiliation or had the force of law and created legal rights for teachers. The Court examined the provisions of the University of Saugar Act, 1946, particularly Sections 2(a), 6(6), 24(i), and 32, and noted that the College Code was an Ordinance made under Section 32 read with Section 6(6). It observed that the respondents conceded the College Code was intra vires. The Court held that Ordinance 20, otherwise called the College Code, has the force of law and confers legal rights on teachers of affiliated colleges. It rejected the argument that the College Code merely regulated the relationship between the University and colleges. The Court stated that the provisions relating to pay scale and security of tenure properly fall within the statutory power of affiliation. It further observed that although Clause 7 required teachers to be appointed on written contract, that did not mean teachers had only a contractual remedy; the provisions of Clause 8 relating to security of tenure were part of service conditions and had statutory force. The Court consequently held that the view taken by the High Court was erroneous and overruled Vedraj Bhawanidas Dua v. Damoh Arts College, 1961 M.P.L.J. 239. The appeal was allowed and the High Court judgment set aside; the matter was remanded for consideration whether the procedure under Clause 8(vi)(a) was violated.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Statutory Force of University Ordinances - College Code (Ordinance 20) Has Force of Law - University of Saugar Act, 1946, Sections 6(6), 32 - The High Court held that College Code was only conditions for affiliation, creating no legal rights for teachers against the Governing Body. The Supreme Court held this view erroneous, ruling that the College Code was made under statutory power and has the force of law, thereby conferring enforceable legal rights on teachers of affiliated colleges. Held, the provisions relating to pay scale and security of tenure fall within the statutory power of affiliation. (Paras 714-718) B) Service Law - Security of Tenure of Teachers - Mandatory Procedure for Termination - University of Saugar Act, 1946, Ordinance 20 Clause 8(vi)(a) - The College Code requires a full enquiry, written statement of charges, and opportunity to defend before termination of a confirmed teacher. The Court held that these provisions are part of service conditions of teachers and not merely contractual terms; violation of Clause 8(vi)(a) is illegal and ultra vires. Held, the Governing Body cannot terminate services without following the prescribed procedure. (Paras 717-718)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the University of Saugar College Code (Ordinance 20) merely prescribed conditions for affiliation or had the force of law and created legal rights in favour of teachers of affiliated colleges.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and held that the College Code (Ordinance 20) has the force of law and creates legal rights in favour of teachers of affiliated colleges. The Court overruled Vedraj Bhawanidas Dua v. Damoh Arts College, 1961 M.P.L.J. 239. The matter was remanded to the High Court for consideration whether the procedure under Clause 8(vi)(a) of the College Code was violated.
Law Points
- Ordinance 20 (College Code) has statutory force
- College Code confers legal rights on teachers
- pay scale and security of tenure fall within statutory power of affiliation
- conditions of service include Clause 8(vi)(a) procedure
- violation of College Code challengeable under Article 226
