Statutory approval and equitable discretion: termination was legally ineffective, yet declaratory relief was refused on hardship grounds.

A managing committee is not a statutory body merely because it is affiliated to a university and follows university statutes; an autonomous body does not become statutory unless created by or under statute. The dismissal of a teacher was ineffective because the governing law made prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor a condition precedent to termination, so non-compliance rendered the dismissal void in law. However, declaratory and injunctive relief remained discretionary under the Specific Relief Act, and the court refused relief where delay, hardship, and the impact on the institution and students made intervention inequitable. The decree for the teacher was therefore set aside and the suit dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant college committee was a statutory body bound by the university statutes so that the termination of the principal's service without the Vice-Chancellor's approval was valid; (ii) Whether, even apart from that characterisation, the termination of service was ineffective for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of prior approval under the university law; (iii) Whether declaratory and injunctive relief ought to be granted in the exercise of discretion under the Specific Relief Act.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant college committee was a statutory body bound by the university statutes so that the termination of the principal's service without the Vice-Chancellor's approval was valid.

Analysis: A body is statutory only if it is created by or under statute and owes its existence to the statute. Mere affiliation to a university, adoption of university statutes, or compliance with regulatory conditions does not convert an autonomous, independently existing managing committee into a statutory body. The committee here had independent existence and was not created by the university enactment. The statutory provisions governing affiliated colleges did not, by themselves, alter its character.

Conclusion: The appellant was not a statutory body.

Issue (ii): Whether, even apart from that characterisation, the termination of service was ineffective for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of prior approval under the university law.

Analysis: The governing provision made approval of the Vice-Chancellor a condition precedent to the effectiveness of dismissal or removal of a teacher. Where the statute itself declares that a termination shall not take effect unless approved, non-compliance makes the termination ineffective and void in law. This is enforcement of the statute, not specific performance of a contract of personal service.

Conclusion: The termination was ineffective for want of approval, and the respondent would ordinarily have been entitled to a declaration of continuing service.

Issue (iii): Whether declaratory and injunctive relief ought to be granted in the exercise of discretion under the Specific Relief Act.

Analysis: Relief of declaration and injunction is discretionary. Even where a termination is legally ineffective, the court may refuse relief if the surrounding facts show that granting it would work grave injustice or disproportionate hardship. The short period of service, the long lapse of time, the financial burden on the institution, and the wider impact on the educational institution and students were treated as decisive discretionary factors.

Conclusion: Discretion was properly refused and the suit was not fit for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree in favour of the respondent was set aside, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored because equitable relief was declined on discretionary grounds despite the statutory invalidity of the termination.

Ratio Decidendi: A managing committee is not a statutory body merely because it is affiliated to a university and subject to its statutes, but where a statute makes prior approval of dismissal mandatory, non-compliance renders the termination ineffective in law; even so, declaratory and injunctive relief remains discretionary and may be refused where justice so requires.

---