UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR AND OTHERS versus MOHD. YASIN AND OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 05-11-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR AND OTHERS 
v. 
MOHD. YASIN AND OTHERS 
November 5, 1973 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
169 
Jammu and Kashmir University Ordinance, 1969 and lammu and 1Ka.ihmlr 
Universily Act, 1969-Section 52-Automatic tertnin'ation under iec1lo11 of 1er· 
vices of Lecturer emP,loye~ on contract basis-No reemploJ.ment IJ! provided 
by statute-More cont1nuatton on the expiry of statutory pzriod does not Justify 
inference of implied engagement. 
Jammu and Kashmi'r University Act, 1965-Enquiry fnJo n1isconduc1 and. 
report under the 1965 Act-No validation o.~ continuation of enquiry co,nmenced 
i111der the 1965 Act it1 the 1969 Act-Show caus:1 notfce and termination service 
basecf on the Enquiry-Report under the 1965 Act- .validity, 
The respondent joined the Jttmmu anU Kashmir University in 
19~3 as 
lecturer on contract basis. 
He was later promoted as professor. His appoint· 
mo:nt as profe&sor was also on contract ba'iis and by aareement be was bound 
. by the stz..,tutes and regulations from time to time in force in the 
University, 
While extendina: his period of probation as Professor the Ce·ntral Council of the 
University rP:solved that the respondent b~ charge-'iheeted for certain alleaed 
misconduct. An Enquiry was he~d under the Jammu and Kashmir Universi~ 
Act, 1965 arJ1 a report was submitted holding the respondent guilty. 
On the 
·day the enquiry officer submitted ~he report, the Jan1mu and Kashmir University 
Ordinance 1969 was promulgated. 
Section 52 of the Ordinance provid~d that 
teachers employed on contract basis "unless otherwise ordered by the Chancellor 
after consulting the Pro-Chancellor shall cease to hold such posts or to discharge 
su'ch duties after 6() days from the commencement of this Ordinance or the Act. 
as the case· may be." 
No such order was issued by the Chancellor extending 
t.he respond:nts employment on the expiration of the period. 
On the other 
hand. the Vice·Chancellor. allowed him to function as P.rofessor and his pro· 
bation was again extended for a year by the Vice-Chancellor'· under s. 13(4) of 
the Ordinance (which had already been replaced on November 16, 1969· by the 
Jammll and Kashmir University Act, 1969}. The Vice-Chancellor also dlrected 
the release of the salary of the respondent and requested him to serve on the 
academic council as an ex-offi:io member. 
Based on the enquiry report the 
Vice-Chancellor issued a show cause notice to which the respondent submitted 
his explanation. 
The Universitv Council decided to terminate the services of 
the respondent. 
JD a Writ pet:ition filed by the respc;mdent the High court 
cHrected re-instatement. 
The Hi.1Z.h Court took the view that the facts. nnd 
drcumstanc~111 of the case clearly enabled the· spelline: out of a fresh app.oint· 
ment of the respondent as ProfeSsor' by an emplied contract. The High Court 
was also of the opinion that the enquiry directed· under the 1965 Act lapsed 
when the 1969 Ordinance came into force and could npt furnish the basis for 
punitive action agair.iSt the respondent and therefore the order of dismissal based 
en the report of the En9uiry Officer was bad in law. 
HELD : that the High 'eoUrt•s order of reins~atement ha-d to be quashed. 
\Vhile the respoJ1dent had no right to contiilue in the University the terntination 
of his services was invalid. 
(i) Under the 1969 Ordinance and the"'Sub!'equent Act which replaced it the 
only body competent to appoin(a professor. like the respondent, is the Univer. 
sity Council and even the Council shall make such aopointments onlv on the 
recommendation of the Selection Committee created by sec~ion 36. 
There is 
no case that, the Selection Committee even considered or recon1mended the 
respondent for appointment and there is no sue:e:estion that the UniversitY Council 
appointed the respondent a1i professor. It follows that the on.lY. sta!utory body 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974] 2 s.c.R. 
empowered .in this behalf has not appointed the respondent to the post claimed 
by him. 
Therefore the continuance of the respondent on the expiration of the 
statutory two months' period canr:ot be Je2itim1ted by law. 
The cir:umstance 
tha.t the respondent functioned in the University does not vest in him .the 
legal sta~us of a validly appoir~ted employee with all the protection. that the Act 
and the relevant statutes give to such a person. 
Thus no case of statutorv ter· 
mination is called ·f

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