SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
University of Kashmir and others, Appellants
Versus
Dr. Mohd. Yasin and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1386 of 1972. D/- 5-11-1973.
Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 2005 - Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1965 - Section 52, 51 , 59 , 36 and 52(4) - Jammu and Kashmir Universities Act. 1969 - Section 13 (4) - University - Professor - Termination of Services - Whether employment of petitioner was validly terminated under impugned resolution – Held, Respondent is perfectly right in contending that he has been considerably damnified in his standing and reputation by this order of University - Court, is therefore, inclined to view that while respondent has no right to continue in University, termination of his services, as per annexure, A, is invalid - It is no use University contending that its order is innocuous - It is clear that its annexure A carries a stigma with it since it expresses " unanimous conclusion that... charges have been established against him" and termination itself is founded on guilt so made out - Court, therefore, declare that Annexure A is void but further hold that respondent has no right to continue in service and direction to him that he should leave his post as Professor and Head of Post Graduate History Department is good - High Court s order of reinstatement is quashed - There is much in circumstances of case to show that both sides have been indifferent to provisions of law which changed from time to time and both sides have acted under misapprehensions which warrant our direction - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
KRISHNA IYER, J. :- The University of Kashmir,the appellant with a blurred sense of legality, issued a ukase by resolution of its Council, terminating the services of its Professor, the appellee, insufficiently aware of the kaleidoscopic legislative changes and crucial statutory consequences on the one hand and curiously indifferent to its own embarrassingly ambivalent dealings seemingly legitimising the permanent status of the Professor. This decision virtually dismissing the appellee was successfully challenged as void in the High Court, but the appellant University has come up in appeal, with a certificate of fitness, seeking to sustain the validity of its action. At the first blush, the law of master and servant may apply to the present fact situation but the statutory status of the employer substantially transforms the character of the master, the consequences of its ultra vires acts as well as amenability to types of relief like re-instatement and the applicability of writ remedies, alien to the legal chemistry of breaches of contract. However, in the light of the factual-cum-legal conclusions which appeal to us these thorny jurisprudential issues of deeper import in a socio-economic and cultural context where the State undertakes dynamic activities affecting citizens rights and operates through corporate and other effective instrumentalities may not fall for direct decision. Enough unto the day is the evil thereof.
2. A chronological narration of the principal facts and events and legislative shifts and their implications must precede consideration of the legal contentions put forward by either side.
3. The Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 2005 (Samvat Year) created the University of Jammu and Kashmir. Several years later, the present respondent Joined the University as a lecturer on contract basis, the law that governed his services being the provisions of that Act and the statutes framed thereunder.
Subsequently, the Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1965, was passed which, while repealing the previous Act, preserved and continued for the transitional period the rules and regulations and services of teachers and officers of the University (S. 52). Primarily, the 1965 Act imparted embryonic shape to the Jammu University and the Kashmir University by the creation of the Divisions, (1) Jammu Division, and (2)Kashmir Division. Anyway, the respondent who had joined in 1963 was appointed as Reader in September 1965, a few months after the 1965 Act came into force. A couple of years later the respondent registered an advance in his career and became Professor in the Post-Graduate Department of the University in the Kashmir Division on terms and conditions contained in letter dated January 8, 1968. While he was put on probation for one year he was informed that immediately after his appointment he would have to enter into an agreement with the University in the form forwarded to him. This agreement bound the respondent to the statutes and regulations from time to time in force in the University. It is significant to note, as the High Court has pointed out in its judgment, that "the case of both the parties, however, is that the appointment of the petitioner as Professor was on contract basis." The one year period of probation expired on December 14 , 1968, but the Vice-Chancellor extended it for one more year by order dated November 11, 1968. This extension was confirmed by the meeting of the Central Council of the University at its meeting dated June 26, 1969. But at the same meeting it was resolved by the Central Council that the respondent be charge-sheeted for certain alleged misconduct. An enquiry was held by an enquiry officer appointed in this behalf, Shri J. N. Bhan, who submitted his report on September 5, 1969 holding the respondent guilty substantially. By accident it happens that on the same date, namely, September 5, 1969, the Jammu and Kashmir University Ordinance, 1969, was promulgated by the Governor
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.