IMPORTANT POINTS
A private unaided college affiliated to University is bound by the Act and Regulations of the University.
Reliance placed by counsel for respondent college on a judgment under the repealed Act may be due to negligence but could amount to misleading the Court.
Parties and their Counsel, at all levels, are duty bound to double check and verify before making any presentation to the Court. Lawyer cannot act merely as a mouthpiece of his client. His responsibility increases while representing an institution.

JUDGMENT :

NAVIN SINHA, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, a lecturer in a private unaided college affiliated to the Chaudhary Charan Singh University (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCS University’) Meerut under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), assails his termination dated 24.04.2017 as being contrary to the provisions of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the termination was in violation of Section 35(2) of the Act as no prior approval had been taken. The High Court erred in holding that the writ petition was not maintainable. The earlier order of termination dated 04.06.2015 had been set aside by the Vice-Chancellor on 16.07.2016 for that reason and as also being in violation of Rule No. 16.06 of the University Regulations. The order had attained finality in absence of any challenge by the respondent management.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent management submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable against a private unaided college as it was not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The order of the High Court does not call for any interference. There can be no enforcement of a contract of personal service. There was a simple relationship of master and servant. The departmental proceedings were held in accordance with law. The managing committee of the college was not a statutory body. Reliance was placed on Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Others vs. Lakshmi Narain and Others, (1976) 2 SCC 58.

5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The High Court held that merely because of affiliation to the CCS University, the writ petition was not maintainable against a private unaided college. The order is cryptic, non-speaking and devoid of any consideration of the statutory provisions of the Act. The effect and consequences of the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 16.07.2016 has also not been considered.

6. The respondent college terminated the services of the appellant on 04.06.2015 by a non-speaking order with immediate effect. The appellant approached the Vice-Chancellor who after hearing the college, held that prior approval not having been obtained under Section 35(2) of the Act read with Rule No. 16.06 of the University Regulations, the termination was bad and set it aside. But, because there were serious allegations of financial misappropriation, liberty was granted to the management to hold departmental proceedings. The management accepted the order and initiated departmental proceedings culminating in a fresh order of termination dated 24.04.2017. The fresh order of termination was again in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations of the CCS University.

7. Section 35(2) of the Act in its relevant extract reads as:

“35. Conditions of service of teachers of affiliated or associated colleges other than those maintained by Government or local authority - (1) Every teacher in an affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government) shall be appointed under a written contract which shall contain such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. The contract shall be lodged with the University and a copy thereof shall be given to the teacher concerned, and another copy thereof shall be retained by the college concerned.

(2) Every decision of the Management of such college to dismiss or remove a teacher or to reduce him in rank or to punish him in any other manner shall before it is communicated to him, be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor.

xxx xxx”

8. The college being affiliated to the University was bound by the provisions of the Act with its attendant consequences for noncompliance. The college having accepted the order of the Vice-Chancellor and acted upon the same by holding departmental proceedings cannot urge that