9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether section 24 of Chapter V of the Administration Manual is ultra vires the powers conferred on the Syndicate. 2. Whether section 24 and clause 10(b) of the agreement are void and ineffectual due to inconsistency with sections 7 to 12 of Chapter XXIX of the University Code. 3. Whether the services of the appellant could be terminated except on the grounds mentioned in sections 7 to 10 of the University Code. Summary: Issue 1: Ultra Vires of Section 24 of Chapter V of the Administration Manual The appellant argued that section 24 of Chapter V of the Administration Manual is ultra vires the powers conferred on the Syndicate. The Court analyzed section 24 alongside clauses (c)(iii) and (d) of section 19, section 39(f), section 34, and section 42 of the Andhra University Act. It concluded that the Syndicate has the untrammeled power to define the terms and conditions of service of the teachers of the University. Section 24, being a condition of service, is within the powers of the Syndicate. Therefore, the first contention was repelled. Issue 2: Voidness and Ineffectuality Due to Inconsistency The appellant contended that section 24 and clause 10(b) of the agreement are void due to inconsistency with sections 7 to 12 of Chapter XXIX of the University Code. The Court found that sections 7 to 12 of Chapter XXIX deal with suspension, removal for misconduct, and termination on the ground of ill health, which are distinct from termination simpliciter without casting any aspersion. Section 24 and clause 10(b) provide for termination without assigning reasons, which is a separate matter. Thus, neither section 24 nor clause 10(b) was found to be void on the ground of repugnancy. Issue 3: Grounds for Termination of Services The appellant argued that his services could not be terminated except on the grounds mentioned in sections 7 to 10 of the University Code. The Court held that the case was one of termination of service simpliciter without attaching any stigma, governed by the conditions of service specified in the contract of employment. The Court referenced the decision in Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Teellis, which stated that termination or dismissal of a pure contract of master and servant is remedied by damages, not by specific performance. The Court also cited Delhi Transport Undertaking v. Balbir Saran Goel, emphasizing that termination under a contractual provision without an enquiry does not amount to misconduct. Conclusion: All contentions raised on behalf of the appellant were rejected. The appeal was dismissed, and each party was left to bear its own costs. Appeal dismissed.
|
