PRABHAKAR RAMAKRISHNA JODH versus A. L. PANDE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 12-01-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRABHAKAR RAMAKRISHNA JODH 
v. 
A. L. PANDE AND ANOTHER 
/anuary 12, 1965 
B 
( K. SUBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, R. S. BACHAWAT 
AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.) 
University 6/ Saugar Act, 194&-College Code (Ordinance 20)-Affi--
/Jated College--Teacher's pay scales and security of tenure--Whether within 
•taJutory power, or contractual relationship. 
The appellant was a teacher in a college, affiliated to the University 
C 
of Saugar and managed by the Governing Body established under cl. 3 
of the 'College Code' which is an ordinance made under the provisions of 
the University of Saugar Act. The Principal of the College served the 
appeUant a charge sheet and asked him to submit bis explanation. The 
appellants denied all the charges and requested the particulars on which 
one of the charges was based. The appellant alleged that this was not 
1upplied and the Governing Body terminated bis services without holding 
any enquiry. Thereafter the appeUant moved the High Court for a writ 
D quashing the order of the Governing Body and for bis reinstatement; 
bis case was that the Governing Body bad made the order of discharge 
in violation of the provisions of the 'College Code'. 
The High Court 
rejected the contention of the appeUant on the ground that the conditions 
of service of the appellant were governed not by the 'College Code' but 
by the contract made between the Governing Body and the appellant. 
The High Court also took the view that provisions of 'College Code' were 
E 
merely conditions prescribed for affiliation of Colleges and no legal rights 
were created by the 'College Code' in favour of the teachers of the 
a.ffiliated colleges as agail)st the Governing Body. 
In appeal by special 
leave. 
HELD : That the view taken by the High Court was erroneous. 
The provisions of Ordinance 20, otherwise called the ''College Code" 
have the force of law. It confers legal rights on the teachers of the affi-
F 
liated coUeges and it is not a correct proposition to say that the "College 
Code" merely regulates the legal relationship between the affiliated Colleges 
and University alone. Th provisions of the "College Code" relating to 
the pay scale of teachers and their security of tenure properly faU within 
the statutory power of affiliation granted to the University under the Act. 
[718 B-E] 
Vedraj Bhawanidas Dua v. Damoh Arts College, 1961 
G M.P.L.J. 239, overruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 137 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated 
February 28, 1963, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. 
H 
Petition No. 236 of 1960. 
The appellant appeared in person. 
S. N. Bhandari and Anand Prakash, for the respondent. 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[9! 65 2 S.C.R 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami J. 
This appeal 
is brought, by special leave, 
against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya 
Pradesh dated February 28, 1962 dismissing the petitii>n of the 
appellant for grant of a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution of 
India. 
The appellant was appointed as a lecturer in Sanskrit in the 
year 1955 in the S.B.R. College (Sheobhagwan Rameswarlal Arts 
College) , Bilaspur and he was confirmed in that post in the year 
1957. The College is affiliated to the University of Sau gar under 
A 
B 
the provisions of the University of Saugar Act 1946 (hereinafter 
called the Act) and is managed by the Governing Body established 
C 
under Clause 3 of the 'College Code' which is an Ordinance made 
under the provisions of the Act. The College is maintained out 
of the funds of Sheobhagwan Rameswarlal Charitable Trust, 
Biiaspur and is aided by the State Government. On June 2, 1960 
the Principal of the College served the appellant, by post, a charge 
D 
sheet consisting of three charges and the appellant was asked to 
~ubmit explanation within a week's time. 
The charges were as 
follows:-
"(1) That you have deliberately based your representa-
tion dated 28-12-1959 on false 
fact~ and mis-
statements and have committed acts of insubordi-
nation amounting to misconduct by making 
counter-charges against the Governing Body. 
( 2) That you have not been taking active interest in 
the extra-curricular activities of the College and 
have failed to cooperate with the authorities as 
required by the conditions of service. 
(3) That you have deliberately avoided to execute your 
service ,bond which every teacher of the institution 
is required to do. This non

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