S.M.Fazl Ali, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Allahabad High Court affirming the decree of the First Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar by which the plaintiff/respondent's suit for injunction was decreed.
(2.) The appeal arises in the following circumstances. The appellant which is the Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College in the District of Muzaffarnagar was registered under the Registration of Co-operative Societies Act as an institution for imparting education. The affairs of the College were managed by the Executive Committee of the Vaish College which is the appellant in this case. In the year 1967 the Vaish Degree College which is the appellant in this case. In the year 1967 the Vaish College was affiliated to the Agra University and as a consequence thereof the College agreed to be governed by the provisions of the Agra University Act and the statutes and Ordinances made thereunder. With the establishment of the Meerut University some time in the year 1965 the Vaish Degree College got affiliated to the Meerut University. The plaintiff/respondent was appointed as Principal of the College on permanent basis with effect from July 1, 1964 and his appointment as Principal of the College on permanent basis with effect from July 1, 1964 and his appointment as Principal was formally approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the Agra University. Two years later it appears that differences arose between the Executive Committee of the College and the plaintiff/respondent resulting in allegations and counter-allegations and culminating in a notice served by the Executive Committee on October 24, 1966 on the plaintiff/respondent directing him not to discharge the duties of the Principal and another letter was sent to defendant No. 4 a member of the staff of the College to officiate as Principal in place of the plaintiff/respondent. This was followed up by a counter-notice by the plaintiff/respondent to the Executive Committee that the notice sent to him was illegal and the respondent also asked defendant No. 4 not to assume charge of the Principal. On March 12, 1967, the Executive Committee by a resolution terminated the services of the plaintiff/respondent with effect from October 24, 1966 and this resolution was amended by another resolution on March 29, 1967. Even before the formal resolution terminating the services of the plaintiff/respondent was passed it appears that the plaintiff had filed the present suit on October 28, 1966 before the Court of the First Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar which was transferred for disposal to the Court of the Munisif, Kairana. 2A. The plaintiff's case (supra) was that on being affiliated to the Agra University and thereafter to the Meerut University and adopting the provisions of the Acts and the statutes of the said Universities the appellant College became a statutory body and had no jurisdiction to terminate the services of the plaintiff/respondent without seeking the previous approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The plaintiff further submitted that after his appointment he entered into an agreement with the Executive Committee in accordance with the statutes of the University and the appellant was bound by the terms and provisions of the statutes under which his services could not be terminated without the previous approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The plaintiff therefore, contended that his removal from service was without jurisdiction and he must be deemed to have continued in service. He also made some allegations of bias and mala fides against the Executive Committee and some other persons with which we are not concerned in this appeal. The plaintiff accordingly prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interesting with his duties as the Principal of the College. It appears, however, from the record that after the notice given to the plaintiff/respondent by the Executive Committee the plaintiff was benefit of all his powers and in spite of his attempts to get into the College and work as Principal he was not allowed to do so which led to some criminal proceedings also. It is, therefore, clear that at least after the resolution of the Executive Committee was passed terminating the services of the plaintiff he has not been working as Principal of the College up-till now. This position is not disputed before us by counsel for the parties.
(3.) The defence was that the Executive Committee was not a statutory body and therefore, was not bound by the statutes and the provisions of the University Acts although as a matter of convention it had agreed to follow the same. The defendant/appellant also denied the allegations of the plaintiff/respondent that the Executive Committee had entered into any agreement or contract of service with the plaintiff/respondent. The defendant further alleged that as the plaintiff/respondent remained habitually and perpetually absent from his duties without the permission of the concerned authority the defendant/appellant was compelled to dispense with the services of the plaintiff/respondent. In fact the plea taken by the defendant was that the plaintiff himself by his remaining perpetually absent from duties abandoned the service and had put an end to the contract of service and therefore he could not be heard to say that the contract of service still subsisted.;