High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
SHIVNARAYAN - Appellant
Versus
VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF SAGAR - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 182 Of 1959
Decided On : 01/18/1960
UNIVERSITY SERVICE - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - PROBATIONER - POWER OF VICE-CHANCELLOR - NOTICE - CONTRACT OF SERVICE - INTERPRETATION - CIVIL SUIT - BAR OF SECTION 49 (2) OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SAUGAR ACT, 1946.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer in Hindi at the University of Saugar, was appointed on probation for two years. On 19th August 1959, the Head of the Hindi Department made a report to the Vice-Chancellor that the petitioner's work was not satisfactory and that his services should be terminated forthwith. On this report, the Vice-Chancellor made an order on 20th August 1959 terminating the petitioner's services from the 25th August 1959.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Vice-Chancellor had the power to terminate the petitioner's services under Section 14 (4) of the University of Saugar Act, 1946, which empowered him to take immediate action in any emergency without reference to the Executive Council. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to any notice before the termination of his services, as he was a probationer and the period of probation was specifically fixed. The court further held that Clause 9 of the contract of service, which provided for three months' notice before termination of service, did not apply to the petitioner as he had not been confirmed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Vice-Chancellor had the power to terminate the petitioner's services without reference to the Executive Council? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to any notice before the termination of his services? 3. Whether Clause 9 of the contract of service applied to the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Vice-Chancellor had the power to terminate the petitioner's services under Section 14 (4) of the University of Saugar Act, 1946, which empowered him to take immediate action in any emergency without reference to the Executive Council. The court held that the question of whether an emergency existed and whether the Vice-Chancellor was justified in making an order on his own terminating the petitioner's services was not open to judicial review. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to any notice before the termination of his services, as he was a probationer and the period of probation was specifically fixed. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36, which held that a probationer's services could be terminated at any time before the expiry of the period of probation without any notice. 3. The court held that Clause 9 of the contract of service, which provided for three months' notice before termination of service, did not apply to the petitioner as he had not been confirmed. The court held that the clause was only concerned with the termination of the services of the executant after confirmation.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shivnarayan moves for a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated the 20th August 1959 of the Vice-Chancellor of the opponent University terminating his services with effect from the 25th August 1959. The petitioner also prays that a direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the opponent University for his reinstatement in service.
( 2 ) THE facts are that the applicant was appointed as a lecturer in Hindi against a permanent vacancy on the 26th August 1957. He was placed on a probation of two years from 26th August 1957. On 19th August 1959, the Head of the Hindi Department made a report to the Vice-Chancellor that the petitioner's work was not satisfactory and that his services should be terminated forthwith. On this report the Vice-Chancellor made an order on 20th August 1959 terminating the applicant's services from the 25th August 1959. The order terminating the applicant's services mentioned that the applicant had shown inability to teach, particularly higher classes that he had failed to handle efficiently the work of the Bun-del Khandi section of the department to which he was attached; and that he had shown lack of "general intellectual interest. " The petitioner challenges the validity of the termination order on the ground that no notice or charge-sheet was given to him before the order D/- 20-8-1959 was made and he was not given any opportunity to meet the imputation against his efficiency; that the Vice-Chancellor had no power to terminate his services; and that in any case his services could not be ended without a prior notice of three months.
( 3 ) THE reply of the opponent University is that as the petitioner was on a probation of two years and as his work was not found to be satisfactory by the Head of the Hindi Department, his services could be terminated at any time before the period of probation expired; that the Vice-Chancellor acted under Section 14 (4) of the University of Saugar Act, 1946, in passing the order terminating the petitioner's services; that Clause (9) of the agreement of service entered into between the petitioner and the University, under which the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to three months' notice before the termination of his service, was not applicable to the petitioner as he had not been confirmed; and that the said clause applied only to the termination of the executant's services after confirmation.
( 4 ) SHRI Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not dispute that ordinarily a probationer's services could be terminated at any time before the expiry of the period of probation. He, however, urged that in the circumstances in which the applicants services were terminated, the termination amounted to punishment, and, therefore, on the principles of natural justice the applicant should have been given a chance to controvert and explain the grounds on which his services were terminated. It was said that the Head of the Department, on whose report the Vice-Chancellor made the order of termination, had himself given a good certificate to the petitioner on the 18th August 1959; that the case of the petitioner's confirmation was actually put up before the Executive Council of the University on the 12th August 1959, but the consideration of the matter was postponed for some reason; that, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor had no power to terminate the applicant's services before the decision of the Executive Council and thus forestall the decision on the question whether the applicant should or should not be confirmed; that the termination of the petitioner's services on the ground that he was lacking in ability or that he exhibited lack of general intellectual interest carried with it an imputation against his efficiency, conduct and capacity which could be controverted or explained by him; that these grounds amounted to his outright condemnation for
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.