1972 (1) TMI 110 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the termination of the appellant's services by the Managing Committee.
2. Applicability of principles of natural justice.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. Nature of the relationship between the appellant and the college (master and servant or statutory status).
5. Breach of statutory provisions under the Lucknow University Act, 1920.
6. Availability of remedies for wrongful termination.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the termination of the appellant's services by the Managing Committee:
The appellant's services were terminated by a resolution passed on 12-11-1967 by the Managing Committee of the Jai Narain College, Lucknow. The appellant challenged this resolution, claiming it violated principles of natural justice. The High Court initially quashed the resolution, but a Division Bench later reversed this decision, stating the relationship between the College and the appellant was that of master and servant.

2. Applicability of principles of natural justice:
The Division Bench of the High Court found that the principles of natural justice were not violated as the appellant was given an opportunity to submit his explanation to the charges. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that in a pure master and servant relationship, the question of natural justice does not arise unless there is a statutory or other restriction.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The appellant argued that the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the termination. The Supreme Court, however, held that the High Court was correct in its view that the writ petition was incompetent because the relationship was purely contractual and did not involve any statutory obligation.

4. Nature of the relationship between the appellant and the college (master and servant or statutory status):
The Supreme Court reiterated that the relationship between the appellant and the college was that of master and servant. It referenced several cases, including Ridge v. Baldwin and Vidyodaya University v. Silva, to support the principle that specific performance of a contract of service is not enforceable in the absence of special circumstances.

5. Breach of statutory provisions under the Lucknow University Act, 1920:
The appellant contended that his termination violated statutes under the Lucknow University Act, 1920. The Supreme Court examined statutes 151, 152, and 153, concluding that these statutes did not have the force of law unless incorporated into a contract. The appellant's contract did not incorporate any statutory procedure for dismissal, thus no statutory breach occurred.

6. Availability of remedies for wrongful termination:
The Supreme Court affirmed that the appellant's remedy for wrongful termination lay in a claim for damages rather than reinstatement or a writ under Article 226. The Court cited previous judgments, including Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi and Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai, to support this position.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the writ petition was incompetent and the appellant's remedy lay in a claim for damages. The Court made no order as to costs.