GOVERNING BODY OF DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC COLLEGE versus PADMANABHA PADHY & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 14-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GOVERNING BODY OF DAYANAND ANGLO VEDIC 
COLLEGE 
v. 
PADMANABHA PADHY & ORS. 
JANUARY 14, 1988 
[G.L. OZA AND LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.J 
Constitution of India 1950: Article 226-Writ petition-Grant of 
> , 
relief to petitioner-Necessary facts to be proved-College lecturer-
Services terminated-Appointment and termination orders-Examina-
, tion of. 
-
·\ 
Pleadings-Admission-To be accepted or rejected as a whole-
~ Not in part. 
The lst respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in the appellant 
College on 26th July, 1971 and was placed under probation for one 
year. He was informed by a letter dated 28th March, 1972 that his 
.,., 
services were no longer required and would stand terminated with 
effect from the afternoon of 30th April, 1972. 
The lst respondent challenged the aforesaid termination order by 
a writ application contending that his appointing authority was "The 
'y 
Managing Committee or the Governing Body" of the College, and as 
such the order of termination of his services by the Principal of the 
College was without jurisdiction. The writ application was contested on 
behalf of the Appellant by contending that the Principal who was the 
• Ex-Officio Secretary was the appointing authority and was vested with 
the power to terminate the appellant's services. On behalf of the 
~ector of Public Instruction, who was also a party to the writ applica-
f 
lion, it was stated that both the orders of appointment and termination 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
had been passed by the Governing Body and the Principal who com-
municated the same to the \st respondent was acting on behalf of the 
Governing Body, and that the DP! was not concerned with the termina-
tion orders passed before 3rd of May, 1972 the date from which 1974 
G 
.,. 1 Amendment of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 took effect, and that the 
DPI had no power to look into the matter. 
The High Court rejected the objection to the maintainability of 
the writ application on the ground that the College was a private institu· 
tion, and held that in view of the provisions of the Orissa Education 
H 
7fY7 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
119881 2 S.C.R. 
A Act, 1969 Berhampur University Act 1966 and the Berhampur Uni- r-
versity Statutes 1966, the college must be considered to be a statutory 
body amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It held that, "undoubtedly until 
'f "i 
confirmation petitioner had no right to the post and during the period 
of probation he could be turned out from his service", but in view of the 
language of the appointment letter and the termination order both the 
B orders have been passed by some authority other than the Principal and 
the Principal was merely a communicating agent. It opined that the 'f 
termination order did not emanate from the Governing Body of the 
1- _; 
College which alone had the power to terminate the services of a 
teacher, and as such held that the termination order. was issued without 
juris.diction. The writ application was allowed, and the lst respondent ·l;f._ 
was declared to have continued in service. 
~ ' 
c 
Allowing the appeal by the College, this Court, 
HELD: l. The writ petition was founded on the assumption that it 
was the Principal who had passed the termination order by himself and 
D that he had no jurisdiction to do so. Instead of merely pointing out that 
it was not so, the affidavit on behalf of the College made a confused 
statement forgetting that the Principal was only one of the members of 
the Governing Body. Both sides, thus, misrepresented the situation 
before the Court. [71 !D-EI 
E 
2. ·Although it is permissible for a tribunal to accept part and 
F 
G 
reject the rest of any witness's testimony, so far as admission in plead-
ing is concerned, it cannot be so dissected. It may be accepted as a 
whole or not at all. [7l2A-BI 
M.M. Essabhoy v. M. Haridas, AIR 1915 PC 2 referred to. 
3. The case of the College had been that both the appointment 
and the termination orders were given by the Principal. This plea is of 
course incorrect but for that reason the statement by the College cannot 
be truncated and part of it accepted while rejecting the other part. It 
had to be accepted as a whole or not at all. [71 !HI 
4. The finding and the assumption made by the High Court that 
the termination order was passed by an authority other than the 
appointing authority being not supported by any material whatsoever 
on the record has to be set aside. [71281 
H 
5. The burden of proving the necessary facts

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