2019 (5) TMI 1219 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reinstates terminated college employee in compliance with state law

LAL BAHADUR GAUTAM Versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court set aside the termination of the appellant from a private unaided college, deeming it in violation of the Uttar Pradesh State ... Maintainability of petition - termination of services of appellant (teachers of affiliated or associated colleges other than those maintained by Government or local authority) - respondent management submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable against a private unaided college as it was not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- The High Court held that merely because of affiliation to the CCS University, the writ petition was not maintainable against a private unaided college. The order is cryptic, nonspeaking and devoid of any consideration of the statutory provisions of the Act. The effect and consequences of the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 16.07.2016 has also not been considered. Termination of services of the appellant on 04.06.2015 by a nonspeaking order with immediate effect - HELD THAT:- The college being affiliated to the University was bound by the provisions of the Act with its attendant consequences for noncompliance. The college having accepted the order of the Vice-Chancellor and acted upon the same by holding departmental proceedings cannot urge that it is bound by one part of the order and not the other. It cannot have the benefit of the order without complying with its obligations under the order. A bare reading of the statutory provision makes it manifest that prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor was mandatory before termination of the appellant. Having allowed the order to attain finality, it is not open for the college management to now urge that it was not bound to follow the procedure. The order of termination dated 24.04.2017 being in teeth of Section 35(2) of the Act is patently unsustainable. The termination is in teeth of the provisions of the Act, it is set aside. The appellant is held entitled to reinstatement - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private unaided college.2. Termination of the appellant without prior approval under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973.3. Validity and consequences of the Vice-Chancellor's order dated 16.07.2016.4. Misplaced reliance on the judgment in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli vs. Lakshmi Narain.5. Professional conduct and duty of the counsel representing the respondent management.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private unaided college:The High Court had held that the writ petition was not maintainable against a private unaided college merely because of its affiliation to the CCS University. The Supreme Court found this order to be cryptic, nonspeaking, and devoid of any consideration of the statutory provisions of the Act. The Court emphasized that the affiliation to the University binds the college to the provisions of the Act and its consequences for noncompliance.2. Termination of the appellant without prior approval under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973:The appellant's termination on 24.04.2017 was challenged as being contrary to Section 35(2) of the Act, which mandates that any decision to dismiss or remove a teacher must be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and cannot take effect unless approved by the Vice-Chancellor. The Supreme Court held that the termination was in violation of this provision, making it patently unsustainable. The Court noted that the college had previously accepted the Vice-Chancellor's order and initiated departmental proceedings, thus it could not now claim to be unbound by that order.3. Validity and consequences of the Vice-Chancellor's order dated 16.07.2016:The Vice-Chancellor had set aside the earlier termination order dated 04.06.2015 for lack of prior approval and violation of University Regulations. This order had attained finality as it was not challenged by the respondent management. The Supreme Court reiterated that the college could not benefit from the order without complying with its obligations under it. The fresh termination order dated 24.04.2017, being in violation of the same provisions, was also unsustainable.4. Misplaced reliance on the judgment in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli vs. Lakshmi Narain:The respondent management's reliance on the Lakshmi Narain case was deemed completely misplaced. The Supreme Court clarified that the said case was decided under the Agra Universities Act, 1926, which had no provisions similar to Section 35(2) of the current Act. Additionally, the Agra Universities Act, 1926, had been repealed, making any reliance on it irrelevant and leading to a waste of judicial time.5. Professional conduct and duty of the counsel representing the respondent management:The Court expressed concern over the manner of assistance rendered by the respondent's counsel. It highlighted the duty of lawyers to ensure that their presentations to the Court are accurate and based on current law, not on repealed statutes or overruled judgments. The Court emphasized the importance of the lawyer's role in the justice delivery system and the need for higher standards of conduct, especially when representing an institution.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the termination of the appellant, holding it to be in violation of the Act. The appellant was entitled to reinstatement, and the respondent management was allowed to proceed afresh in accordance with the law. The Vice-Chancellor was directed to consider any request for approval on its own merits. The appeal was disposed of with a reminder of the professional responsibilities of lawyers in the justice delivery system.