1. Termination of university teaching staff services — conflict between special procedure under Statute No. 30 and general termination powers under Ordinances and contracts. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 11 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
10th January, 1961
S.K. DAS, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
1. Dr. Akshaibar Lal (In C. A. No. 480 of 60), 2. Dr. Ramdeo Misra (In C. A. No. 481 of 60), 3. Dr. Gopal Tripathi (In C. A. No. 482 of 60), 4. Shri Ganesh Prasad Singh (In C. A. No. 483 of 60), 5. Shri Radhey Shyam Sharma (In C. A. No. 484 of 60), 6. Dr. Ram Yash Roy (In C. A. No. 485 of 60) 7. Shri Ram Vyas Pandey (In C. A. No. 486 of 60), and 8. Dr. Gauri Shankar Tiwari (in C. A. No. 487 of 60), Appellants
Versus
Vice-Chancellor Benaras Hindu University and others (in all the Appeals), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 480 to 487 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (M/s. R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh, K. K. Sinha, Dr. V. A. Seyid Muhammad and Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, Advocates with him), for Appellants, (In C. As. Nos. 480 and 481 of 60); M/s. R. K. Garg, M. K. Ramamurthi S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh, Dr. V. A. Seyid Muhamad and K. K. Sinha, Advocates, for Appellants, (In C. As. Nos. 482 to 487 of 60); Mr. G. N. Kunzru, Senior Advocate, (Mr. I. N. Shroff Advocate, with him), for Respondents (In all the appeals).
Important Points
Once a special statutory procedure is invoked to address specific circumstances, the authority cannot abandon that procedure mid-course to exercise general powers of termination, as this would bypass statutory safeguards and render the action ultra vires.
Subject
Service Law - Termination of Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) University Act - Sections 17, 18, 19A - Statutes and Ordinances - Termination of service - Hierarchy of University laws - Ordinances are subordinate to Statutes and cannot derogate from them or prevail over them in case of conflict. (Paras 16, 26)
(B) Special Procedure vs. General Power - Once a special statutory procedure is invoked to deal with specific circumstances, the authority cannot abandon such procedure mid-course to exercise general powers of termination, especially when such action bypasses statutory safeguards, such as the right to be heard. (Paras 27, 28)
(C) Discretionary Power - Power conferred by a statute to take action "as it may think fit" must be exercised within the four corners of that statute and does not grant discretion to take action outside the statutory framework. (Para 30)
Facts of the case:
Teaching staff were subjected to a special screening process under a specific statute to determine if their continuance in office was detrimental to the interests of the university. After the process reached an advanced stage, including recommendations from a reviewing committee and the issuance of show-cause notices to some, the university administration postponed the special proceedings following court interventions. However, on the same day, the administration terminated the services of the staff by invoking general powers under university ordinances and employment agreements, providing salary in lieu of notice.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the university's action was ultra vires. While the university possessed general powers to terminate services, these powers were subordinate to the statutes. Having deliberately adopted and commenced a special statutory procedure, the university could not revert to general powers to avoid the mandatory safeguards provided by the special statute.
Issues: Whether the university could invoke general powers of termination under ordinances and agreements after having already initiated a special statutory procedure for termination, and whether such a shift in approach was legally permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where a special statutory code is enacted for specific circumstances and is invoked, it excludes the exercise of general powers once the special procedure has commenced. Ordinances, being subordinate to statutes, cannot prevail over them. Abandoning a special procedure mid-course to bypass statutory rights, such as the right to be heard, renders the action ultra vires.
Result: Appeals allowed.
(B) Special Procedure vs. General Power - Once a special statutory procedure is invoked to deal with specific circumstances, the authority cannot abandon such procedure mid-course to exercise general powers of termination, especially when such action bypasses statutory safeguards, such as the right to be heard. (Paras 27, 28)
(C) Discretionary Power - Power conferred by a statute to take action "as it may think fit" must be exercised within the four corners of that statute and does not grant discretion to take action outside the statutory framework. (Para 30)
Facts of the case:
Teaching staff were subjected to a special screening process under a specific statute to determine if their continuance in office was detrimental to the interests of the university. After the process reached an advanced stage, including recommendations from a reviewing committee and the issuance of show-cause notices to some, the university administration postponed the special proceedings following court interventions. However, on the same day, the administration terminated the services of the staff by invoking general powers under university ordinances and employment agreements, providing salary in lieu of notice.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the university's action was ultra vires. While the university possessed general powers to terminate services, these powers were subordinate to the statutes. Having deliberately adopted and commenced a special statutory procedure, the university could not revert to general powers to avoid the mandatory safeguards provided by the special statute.
Issues: Whether the university could invoke general powers of termination under ordinances and agreements after having already initiated a special statutory procedure for termination, and whether such a shift in approach was legally permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where a special statutory code is enacted for specific circumstances and is invoked, it excludes the exercise of general powers once the special procedure has commenced. Ordinances, being subordinate to statutes, cannot prevail over them. Abandoning a special procedure mid-course to bypass statutory rights, such as the right to be heard, renders the action ultra vires.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
D.P.Singh, G.N.KUNZRU, I.M.SHROFF, K.K.SINHA, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, N.C.CHATTERJI, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, V.A.SEYID MUHAMMAD
D.P.Singh, G.N.KUNZRU, I.M.SHROFF, K.K.SINHA, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, N.C.CHATTERJI, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, V.A.SEYID MUHAMMAD
Table of Contents
2. Whether the university could invoke general termination powers under Ordinances and contracts after initiating a special disciplinary procedure under Statute No. 30. (Para 11 )
3. Ordinances are subordinate to Statutes; once a special statutory procedure is invoked for specific circumstances, it cannot be abandoned to exercise general powers. (Para 16 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
4. A special statutory procedure, once adopted and commenced, excludes the exercise of general powers that are subordinate to the statute and inconsistent with the special code. (Para 27 , 28 )
5. Impugned resolutions terminating services quashed; appeals allowed. (Para 31 , 32 )
6. What is the legal relationship between a University Act, its Statutes, and its Ordinances?
The Act is the primary authority. Statutes are framed under the Act, and Ordinances are subordinate to both the Act and the Statutes. Consequently, Ordinances cannot go beyond or derogate from the provisions of the Statutes. (Para 12 , 15 , 16 , 26 )
7. Can an authority exercise general powers if a special statutory procedure has already been initiated?
While alternative remedies are generally cumulative, a special statutory code enacted for specific circumstances excludes the use of general powers once that special procedure has been deliberately adopted and commenced. (Para 27 , 28 )
8. How should a termination clause providing for termination for cause or termination with notice be interpreted?
Such clauses provide two distinct options: termination for specific reasons (such as misconduct or inefficiency) requiring a prior opportunity to show cause, or termination without assigning a cause upon providing notice or salary in lieu. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
9. Does the phrase 'take such action as it may think fit' allow an authority to act outside the governing statute?
No. Discretionary words must be read within the four corners of the statute. They allow a choice of action based on the enquiry's findings but do not permit action outside the statutory framework. (Para 30 )
10. Under what circumstances can the court interfere with a regular act of a public body?
The court interferes only when the act is proved to be ultra vires. Proof of alien or irrelevant motives, such as bad faith or corruption, serves as an example of matters that establish the ultra vires character of the action. (Para 29 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J. : These are eight appeals against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated July 15, 1960, with special leave granted by this Court. By the writ petitions, which failed before the High Court, the appellants had asked that Resolutions Nos. 90, 94 to 96 and 99 to 102 passed by the Executive Council of the Benaras Hindu University on May 15, 1960, terminating their services from June 1, 1960, be quashed. The names of the appellants, the posts they held and the gist of the Resolutions passed against them have been set down below :
Group I
1. Dr. Akshaibar Lal : (C. A. No. 482 of 1960) Reader in College of Agriculture.
(Resolution No. 100 - 4 months pay in lieu of notice)
2. Dr. Gopal Tripathi : (C. A. No. 482 of 1960) Professor of Chemical Engineering and Principal, College of Technology.
(Resolution No. 101 - 4 months pay in lieu of notice)
3. Pandit Ram Vias Pandey : (C. A. No. 486 of 1960) Reader and Head of Department of Jyotish - Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya.
(Resolution No. 99 - Under cls 4 and 7 of the agreement dated March 26, 1931 and Ordinance No. 6 of the Ordinances of the University - 6 months pay in lieu of notice).
4. Dr. Gauri Shankar Tiwari : (C. A. No. 487 of 1960) Lecturer in Chemistry - Central Hindu College (Kamachha)
(Resolution No. 102 - 4 month s pay in lieu of notice)
Group II
5. Dr. Ram Deo Misra : (C. A. No. 481 of 1960) Professor and Head of Department of Botany, College of Science.
(Resolution No. 94 - under cls. 4 and 7 of the agreement dated February 3, 1959 and Ordinance No. 6 of the Ordinances of the University- 4 months pay in lieu of notice)
6. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh : (C. A. No. 483 of 1960) Lecturer in Physical Education, Teachers Training College.
(Resolution No. 95 - under cls. 4 and 7 of the agreement dated January 18, 1946 and Ordinance No. 6 of the Ordinances of the University- 6 months pay in lieu of notice)
7. Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma : (C. A. No. 484 of 1960) Lecturer, College of Technology
(Resolution No. 90 - under cls. 4 and 9 of the agreement dated January 21, 1957 and Ordinance No. 6 of the Ordinances of the University - 4 months pay in lieu of notice)
8. Dr. Ram Yash Roy : (C. A. No. 485 of 1960) Lecturer in Botany, College of Science.
(Resolution No. 96 - under cls. 4 and 7 of the agreement dated August 12, 1932 and Ordinance No. 6 of the Ordinances of the University - 6 months pay in lieu of notice).
2. The cases of the appellants are very similar; but fall into two groups as indicated above. The differences are not many, and some of them are indicated in the gist of the Resolutions noted against their names. Other differences will appear from the facts, which are given below.
3. The affairs of the Benaras Hindu University, for reasons with which we are not concerned, had been deteriorating, and a situation had arisen which required intervention immediately. The President of India, in his capacity as Visitor and in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 5 (2) of the Benaras Hindu University Act, 1915, appointed a Committee of Enquiry (known as the Mudaliar Committee) consisting of :
1. Dr. A. L. Mudaliar (President)
2. Mr. M. C. Mahajan
3. Dr. P. Subbarayan
4. Smt. Sucheta Kripalani
5. Dr. Nairoji Wadia (Members)
to enquire into and report, inter alia, on the general state of discipline in the University, keeping in view the disturbances in some of the Institutions of the University, and to suggest remedies and measures of reform for the betterment of acamedic life and efficient functioning of the University. The Committee made a report suggesting that a "Screening Committee" should be appointed to review the appointments made to the teaching staff and the work of the teaching staff, and that action should be taken in the light of the findings of the Screening Committee.
4. On June 14, 1958, the President of India promulgated an ordinance (IV of 1958) to amend the Benaras Hindu University Act, 1915. By S. 8 of the Ordinance, the Statutes of
