EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF VAISH DEGREE COLLEGE, SHAMLI AND OTHERS versus LAKSHMI NARAIN AND ORS.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 1006 · Decided: 12-12-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1006 
A 
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF V AISH DEGREE COLLEGE, 
SHAMLI AND OTHERS 
\.', 
LAKSHMI NARAIN AND ORS. 
December 12, 1975 
B 
[H. R.· KHANA, P. N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J 
Master and servant-Managing Committee of a college terminating ser-
~ 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
vices of Principal of college_..:..Violatio11 of rule 
requiring 
Vice-Chancellor's 
approval-Rights of Principal. 
Specific Relief-Declaration dfi continuing in service when may be granted. 
The appellant is the Executive Committee of an Educational Institution (a 
college) registered under the Registration of Co-operative Societies Act, and 
the college was affiliated to a University. 
The provisions of the University 
Act require that every decisiun of the management of an affiliated college to 
remove from service a teacher shall be reported forthwith to the Vice-Chancel-
lor and subject to the provisions contained in the Statutes made by the Univer-
sity, shall not take effect unless approved by the' Vice.Chancellor. 
The respondent was appointed by the appellant as a Principal of the college 
but no agreement, as prescribed by the University Act, and the Statutes, was 
executed between the parties. Two 'years after his appointment, the appellant 
served a notice on the Principal directing him not to discharge the duties of 
the Principal and shortly thereafter terminated his services. 
Thereafter, the 
respondent did not work as Principal. The respondent filed a suit contending 
that he must be deemed to be continuing in service, as there was no sanction 
of the Vice-Chancellor for the termination of his services, a,nd prayed for an 
injunetion restraining the appellant from interfering with his duties as Princi-
pal of the institution. 
The trial Court dismissed the suit but the first appellate Court reversed the 
decision and the High Court affirmed the' decision of the first appellate 
Court. 
In appeal to ibis Court, it was contended that : (1) the appellant was no~ 
a statutory body; (2) in the absence of an agreement the requirement regarding 
the approval by the Vice-Chancellor would not apply and the termination of 
the respondent's services would be governed by the usual master and servant 
relntionship; (3) there are no special circumstances for enforcing the contract 
of personal service; and ( 4) the present case was not a fit one for granting the 
relief<> prayed for, they being equitable reliefs 
and in the discretion of the 
Court. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (Per Khanna and Fazal Ali, JJ.). 
( 1) Merely because the appellant followed certain statutory provisions of 
the University Act or the Statutes made thereunder, it cannot be held to be a 
statutory body. [1014 A-Bl 
(a) Before an institution can be a statutory body, it must be created by or 
under the statute a'!ld owe its existence to a statute. 
There is a well-marked 
dis'linction between a body which is created by the statute and a body which, 
after having come into existence, is governed in accordance with the 
provi-
sions of the statute. The question in such cases to be asked is, if there is no 
statute would the institution have any legal existence. If the answer is in the 
negative, then undoubtedly it is a statutory body but if the institution has a 
separate existence of its own without any reference to the statute concerned. 
but is merely governed by the statutory provisions, it cannot be said to be 
a statutory body. [1013 D-1014 Al 
; 
x 
YAISH COLLEGE V. LAKSHMI NARAIN 
100 7 
Suk/1dev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & 
Others, 
A 
{1975] 3 S.C.R. 619, followed. 
( b) Mwely because it was affiliated to the University; that there 
were 
certain mandatory provision9 of the University Act which were binding. on .the 
appellant; and the appellant was governed by the Statutes of the 
Umvers1ty. 
would not be sufficient ta alter the ·character and nature of the appellant and 
'convert it into a statutory body. [1014 B-C] 
(i) The appellant had an independent status having been registered under 
B 
the Registration of Co-operative. Societies Act and was a self-governed or an 
autonomous body. It was affiliated to the University merely for the sake of 
convenience and mainly for the purpose of recognition of its courses of study 
by the University. [1014 C-D] 
· 
(ii) All that Statute, 14A of the University required was that the Managing 
Committee of the college must co-opt the Principal of the college and a repre • 
. sen!

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.