( 61 ) THE learned Judges nextly considered the question"whether the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked by the Lecturer in such a private College. "they first held that the petitioner had no legal right which can be enforced under Article 226. If the reasoning is that she was temporarily appointed and therefore had no right to hold the post, and further she was not qualified and the University had not granted any exemption, then we agree with the view that her services were rightly terminated. The learned Judges, however, relied upon the Praga Tools Corporation v. G. V. Imanual, AIR 1969 SC 1306 and U. P. State Warehousing Corporation. Lucknow v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, AIR 1970 SC 1244 = (1970 Lab IC 1044) along with some other cases. They arrived at the conclusion on that basis that the writ can be issued only to a statutory body in a case where such a body has violated any provision of a statute. Accordingly they held that the appointment of the petitioner was not made under any statute. The appointment was only on a contract basis unconnected with any statutory provisions. They observed;--"that being the case it cannot be said that the appellant has a legal right under any law, regulation or rules in force to enforce her non-fundamental rights. "

( 62 ) SINCE the complaint was made regarding termination of services arising out of breach of contract by a private body, it was held that such a dispute was cognizable by a civil court,

( 63 ) THE question therefore is whether a writ of certiorari can issue against an affiliated college regarding the dismissal of a college lecturer.

( 64 ) IN P. R. Jodh v. A. L Pande (1965) 2 SCR 713 writ was issued to a college affiliated to the Saugar University. The college was managed by a governing body. It was aided by the Government. The applicant was a lecturer. He was dismissed by the governing body on certain charges. In the writ petition his complaint was that his services were terminated in violation of the rules of natural justice.

( 65 ) THE High Court rejected the writ petition. The High Court held that the conditions of service of the appellant were governed not by the college code but by the contract made between the appellant and the governing body. The High Court also took the view that the provisions of the College Code were merely conditions prescribed for the affiliation of college and no legal right was created by the College Code in favour of the lecturers as against the general body.

( 66 ) THE Supreme Court held that the College Code was intra virus of the power of the University contained in Section 12 read with Section 4 (6) of the University Act. The provisions of Ordinance 20 known as College Code have the force of law. It confers legal right on the teachers of the affiliated colleges and it is incorrect to contend that the college code merely regulates the relationship between the University and the affiliated colleges. The provisions of the College Code relating to the pay scale of teachers and their security of tenure properly fell within the statutory power of affiliation granted to the University under the Act.

( 67 ) THE Supreme Court also held that there was violation of Clause 8 (6) of the College Code and therefore the order terminating the services of the appellant was illegal and ultra virus and was therefore quashed by granting necessary relief.

( 68 ) IN Vidya Ram v. S. J. N. College, AIR 1972 SC 1450 = (1972 Lab IC 829), a lecturer, appointed by the Managing Committee of a College affiliated to Lucknow University, was dismissed by the Managing Committee. This order was challenged in a writ petition filed before the High Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It was dismissed on the ground that the relationship between the lecturer and college was that of master and servant and even if his services were terminated in breach of natural justice the remedy lay in a suit for d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document