TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether section 24 of Chapter V of the Administration Manual, empowering termination of a confirmed teacher on notice or payment in lieu of notice without assigning reasons, was beyond the Syndicate's powers; (ii) whether section 24 and clause 10(b) of the service contract were void for repugnancy to sections 7 to 12 of Chapter XXIX of the University Code; (iii) whether the appellant's service could be terminated only on the grounds and by the procedure prescribed in the University Code.
Issue (i): Whether section 24 of Chapter V of the Administration Manual, empowering termination of a confirmed teacher on notice or payment in lieu of notice without assigning reasons, was beyond the Syndicate's powers.
Analysis: The relevant provisions of the Andhra University Act empowered the Syndicate to define the conditions of service of teachers, while the Act also required teachers to be appointed under written contract. The power to regulate conditions of service was treated as distinct from the disciplinary power to suspend or dismiss for misconduct. A contractual term permitting termination on notice, without stigma, was therefore within the authority conferred on the Syndicate and operated as a service condition rather than as disciplinary punishment.
Conclusion: Section 24 of Chapter V of the Administration Manual was intra vires and valid.
Issue (ii): Whether section 24 and clause 10(b) of the service contract were void for repugnancy to sections 7 to 12 of Chapter XXIX of the University Code.
Analysis: The Code provisions dealt with suspension, removal, dismissal, ill-health, procedural safeguards, appeal, and bar to damages in disciplinary cases. They did not govern termination simpliciter under a contractual notice clause that cast no stigma on the teacher. The contractual termination clause and the administrative manual provision operated in a different field from disciplinary removal and were not inconsistent with the Code.
Conclusion: Neither section 24 nor clause 10(b) was void or ineffective on the ground of repugnancy.
Issue (iii): Whether the appellant's service could be terminated only on the grounds and by the procedure prescribed in the University Code.
Analysis: The termination in question was held to be a simple contractual determination of the employment relationship and not an abolition of post, suspension, dismissal, removal for misconduct, or termination for ill-health. In a pure contract of master and servant, wrongful termination does not justify a declaration of continuance in service; the appropriate remedy lies in damages. The manner in which the University exercised the notice clause did not convert the termination into disciplinary action.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to insist that termination could occur only under the disciplinary provisions of the University Code.
Final Conclusion: The service of the appellant was validly terminated under the contractual and administrative terms governing confirmed teachers, and no writ relief was available to restore him to service.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an employer has contractual authority to terminate a confirmed employee's service on notice without assigning reasons, and the termination is not punitive or stigmatic, disciplinary provisions governing misconduct or removal do not apply and reinstatement cannot be granted in a pure contract of personal service.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
