VIDYA RAM MISHRA versus MANAGING COMMITIEE, SHRI JAI NARAIN COLLEGE

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 31-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

320 
VIDYA RAM MISHRA 
,,, 
MAi"'iAGING COMMITI'EE, SHRI JAi NARAIN COLLEGE. 
JalfWJry 31, 1972 
[K. s. llEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN R,EDDY AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.] 
Contract of service-Whether Courl,< enforce specific performance of 
contract of service-;/ not, Its remedy. 
'Tue appellant joined as a lecturer in a College in U.P. On the baaia 
of certain complaints received by the Manaser of the Collese, cbaraeo 
were framed '1gainst him and his explanation was called for. He submitted 
an explanation. The explanation was found unsatisfactory and the Manag-
ing Committee passed a molution for removal of the appellant from 
service. The relevant smtutes governing the present case are Statutes 151, 
152 and 153 framed under tho provisions of the Lucknow University Act, 
1920. The appellant filed a wnt petition before the HIJ!h Court challeng· 
ing the validity of the reoolu.tion and a learned single Judge finding that 
the Managing Committee acted in violation of the principles of natrftl 
justice, qusshed the resolution and allowed the writ petition. On appeal, 
a Division Bench set aside the order of the learned single judge and dis· 
miased the writ petition on the ground that no writ lies in the facts Cll!.d 
c!rclll!\lltances of the case. The remedy of the appellant lay in a suit fol' 
damages. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the appellant had a 
statutory status, that his services were terminated in violation of the pro-
visionA Of the statutes pas!ed under the Lucknow University Act, 1920 and 
therefore, the High Court was wrong in its conclusions that no writ of 
certiorari would lie against the respondent It was further 111bmitted ·that 
the appellGDt was not given a reasonable opportunity of defending hirmelt 
against the charges. Statute 151 provides that a teacher of an associated 
College shall be o.ppointed on a written contract and the contract ahall 
provide the conditions mentioned there in addition to such other condl· 
tions as the associated College may include in the agreement Oause S 
of the agreement provides that the Managing Committee may dispense 
with the services of a lecturer without notice if the Committee is satisfied 
that it is neoess:iry to remove the said lectu= for misconduct or other· 
wi•e, provided, an opportunity is given to him by the Committee to give 
his explanation before a decision is arrived at. 
Dismissing the appeal. 
HELD : (I) When there is a purported termination of a contract of 
service, a declaration that o. contract of service still subsisted would not 
be made in the absence of special circumstances and courts do not ordi· 
narily enforce specific performance of a contract of service. The remedy 
of the victim lies in a claim for d'3.ntages, not a claim for a declaration 
that the contract of service still subsisted. [322 E-F] 
Executive Committee of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. v. 
Chandra Kiran Tyagi, [1970] 2 S.C.R. 250; and Indian AMlnes Corp01w-
tlon v. Sukh Dev Rai, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1828 followed. 
(2) On a plain meaning of statute lSl, it is cilear that it only provides 
that the telrms and conditions mentioned therein must be incorporated in 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. ll. MISHRA v. JAi NARAIN COLLBGB (Mathew, I.) 
321 
A 
the contract to be entered into between the College and the teacher con· 
cel'ned. It does not say that the terms and conditions have any legal force, 
until and unless they are embodied in an '1greement. The terms and con· 
ditions of service. mentioned in Statute I 51 have proprio vigore, no fon:e 
of law. 
They becom~ terms of ~ice only by virtue of their being in• 
corporated in a contract. Without the cpntract, they have no vitality and 
can confer no legal right. 
Therefore, the 3ppellant cannot find a cause 
of action of any breach of law, but only on the breach of the contract, 
B 
for which a writ in the nature of ceritiorari will not lie [327 H] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(3) A writ will lie when the order is the order of a statutory body 
<!Cling in brea.Cti of a mandatory obligation imposed by a statute. 
The 
College or the Managing Committee in question, is not a statutory body 
and f'O the High Court is right is dismissing the petition. f328 DJ 
Further, since the High Court has no jurisdiction, it is not necessary 
to go into the question as to whether the 3ppellant was given sufficient 
opportunity to meet the charges against him. [328 G) 
Prabhakar Ramkrishna Jodh v. A. L. Pande & anr. [1965] 2 S.C.R. 
713

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