1973 (11) TMI 105 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Respondent's right to continue in service after statutory cessation.
2. Validity of reliance on the enquiry report in the termination order.
3. Breach of statutory conditions for termination by the University Council.
4. Implied engagement and its validity under statutory provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Respondent's Right to Continue in Service After Statutory Cessation:
The University of Kashmir issued a resolution terminating the services of a Professor, which was challenged and deemed void by the High Court. The University appealed, arguing that the respondent's employment ceased statutorily under Section 52(4) of the Jammu and Kashmir University Ordinance, 1969. The Ordinance mandated that all contracts with the University would terminate 60 days post-commencement unless extended by the Chancellor. The High Court found that the respondent was impliedly reappointed, but the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the statutory cessation was clear and the respondent's continuance was not legally valid.

2. Validity of Reliance on the Enquiry Report in the Termination Order:
The University Council relied on an enquiry report to terminate the respondent, which the High Court found unlawful. The Supreme Court noted that the enquiry commenced under the 1965 Act lapsed with the 1969 Ordinance, making the report invalid. The reliance on this report for termination was a statutory violation, rendering the termination order illegal. The Court declared the termination order void due to its reliance on an invalid enquiry report.

3. Breach of Statutory Conditions for Termination by the University Council:
The High Court held that the termination did not comply with statutory regulations, as the enquiry report could not be the basis for punitive action post-1969 Ordinance. The Supreme Court confirmed that the University Council's decision based on the enquiry report was unlawful. The statutory conditions for termination were breached, as the respondent's employment could only be terminated per statutory regulations, which were not followed.

4. Implied Engagement and Its Validity Under Statutory Provisions:
The High Court inferred a fresh appointment by implied contract due to the respondent's continued service. The Supreme Court rejected this, emphasizing that statutory bodies must operate within their defined powers. The University Council alone had the authority to appoint professors, and no such appointment was made for the respondent. The Vice-Chancellor's actions, including extending probation, were beyond his statutory powers and could not legitimize the respondent's continued employment. The doctrine of implied engagement was deemed inapplicable in this statutory context.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the respondent had no legal right to continue in service after the statutory cessation period. The termination order was invalid due to reliance on an unlawful enquiry report, but the respondent's implied engagement was not legally sustainable. The High Court's order of reinstatement was quashed, and both parties were directed to bear their own costs.