ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
GANGESHWAR PRASAD, JAGDISH SAHAI, JJ.
Managing Committee of Meerut College - Appellant
Versus
Dr. V. Puri - Respondent
Sp. A. No. 882 of 1968. Special Appeal against the judgment and order dated the 6th of August, 1968, passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. C. Mathur in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2041 of 1958.
Decided On : 02-04-1969
JUDGMENT
Jagdish Sahai, J. - This is a special appeal by the Managing Committee of the Meerut College, Meerut, directed against the judgment of G. C. Mathur, J. dated 6th August, 1968, allowing writ petition No. 2041 of 1968 filed by the respondent No. 1. Dr. V. Puri, the Principal of the Meerut College.
2. The Meerut College was originally affiliated to the Agra University but now is an affiliated college of the Meerut University which has come into existence in 1965.
3. Dr. Puri was appointed the Principal of the Meerut College with effect from July 1, 1965, on six months' probation and was confirmed on that post with effect from January 1, 1966. On 12th of October, 1965 he and the Managing Committee of the College entered into an agreement a copy of which is Annexure `A' to the petition.
4. The Managing Committee passed a resolution on 12th June, 1968, terminating the services of Dr: Puri with immediate effect and appointing Dr. B. R. Agarwal as the officiating principal. The case of the college is.that it acted riot under clause 10 but under clause 14 of the agreement. The two clauses read :-
"10. After confirmation, the. services of the Principal can be terminated only on one of the following grounds and with previous permission of the Vice-Chancellor :-
(a) Wilful neglect of duty.
(b) Misconduct : Including disobedience to the orders of the Managing Committee passed in accordance with the terms of this agreement and the Statutes, Ordinances and regulations of the University.
(c) Breach of any of the terms of the contract.
(d) Physical or mental. unfitness.
(e) Incompetence; provided that the plea of incompetence shall not be used against the party of the first part after two years of confirmation.
14. Except when termination of service has taken place under sub-clause (a) (b) or (c) of clause 10 above neither the party of the first part nor the party of the second part shall terminate this Agreement, except by giving to the other party three calendar months notice in writing or by paying to the other party a sum equivalent to thrice the monthly salary which the party of the first part is then earning.
Note :-The period of notice referred to above does not include the summer vacation or any part thereof."
5. In pursuance of the aforesaid resolution, Sri Sultan Singh Jain, Hon. Secretary of the Meerut College sent to Dr. Puri office letter No. 84 (4) dated 12/13th June, 1968, stating therein that his services have been terminated by the College Executive Committee by means of resolution No. 3 of 12th June, 1968, and that the college accountant was being directed to send him (Dr. Puri) a cheque for three months' salary in lieu of notice in addition to the salary for the month of June, 1968. In this letter Dr. Puri was asked to hand over charge to Dr. B. R. Agarwal.
6. It was prayed in the writ petition that this letter (described as order in the writ petition) be quashed by means of a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to the writ petition (1. The Managing Committee of Meerut College, 2. The Meerut College, 3. Dr. B. R. Agarwal) not to give effect to the order dated 121I3th June, n;58, or the resolution No. 3 passed on 12th June, 1968.
7. Dr. Puri also made the general prayer for the issue of any other writ, order or direction as this Court may, in the circumstances of the case, deem fit and proper to issue.
8. On behalf of Dr. Puri, the following submissions were made before G. C. Mathur, J.
1. That inasmuch as the Vice-Chancellor has not given his approval under Section 28 (3) of the Kanpur and Meerut University Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , the order terminating the services of Dr. Puri was bad and inoperative.
2. That the order of termination was made in violation of statute No. 29-A (4) of the Statute of the Agra University which, at the relevant time, were operative in the Meerut University.
3. That the order of termination was bad on the ground that the procedure prescrib
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.