- (1.) THE petitioner is a Managing Committee of the Digambar College, Dibai District Bulandshahr. The said Managing Committee is running a Degree College in the name of Digambar College at Dibai, which is affiliated to the Meerut University. As the post of the Principal of the said college was vacant, the same was advertised in the newspaper. Dr. Ratna Kumar Varshney, was ultimately selected for being appointed as a Principal. His name was, thereafter, sent to the Vice-Chancellor for his approval under Section 26 of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After approval was accorded by him, the respondent No. 2 was appointed on probation for one year by the appointment letter dated 4-7-1971. The respondent No. 2 joined the college on 6-8-1971. As the work of the respondent No. 2 was not to the satisfaction of the Managing Committee, a meeting of the Managing Committee was convened for the 26th of June, 1972. The Managing Committee met on the aforesaid date and passed a resolution dispensing with the service of the respondent No. 2. As required by Section 26 of the said Act, the copy of the resolution was sent to the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University, Meerut for his approval. By the letter dated 7-7-1972 the Assistant Registrar of the Meerut University called upon the Managing Committee to give detailed report about the work and conduct of the respondent No. 2. The Committee of Management being of the opinion that the Vice-Chancellor had no right to know the reasons for the termination of the service of the respondent No. 2, refused to comply with the demand of the University. But on being pressed by the University sent the same on 14- 8-1972. The Vice-Chancellor ultimately refused to give permission to terminate the service of the respondent No. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the refusal of the Vice-Chancellor the present writ petition has been filed by the Management for the quashing of the same.
(2.) THE writ petition has been contested by the Meerut University as well as Dr. Ratna Kumar Varshney, respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 has asserted that his work during the probation period was highly satisfactory and commendable, but as he refused to oblige the management by refusing to adopt irregular, illegal and corrupt practices in their advantage therefore, the members of the Managing Committee were against the respondent No. 2. The Meerut University has justified the order of the University on the ground of the same being legal, correct and within his jurisdiction. Sri Shanti Bhushan, appearing for the management submitted that the provisions of the Statutes requiring approval of the Vice-Chancellor were ultra vires of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act. He urged that Section 26 of the Act confers an absolute and unfettered right on the management of an institution to terminate the services of a teacher on probation. As there is no provision in the Act requiring the approval of the Vice-Chancellor in this regard, therefore, the following proviso added to Statute No. 6.06 is invalid. The said proviso is as follows :- "Provided that prior permission of the Vice-Chancellor shall be necessary."
(3.) I have considered the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner but I am unable to find any substance in the same. It is true that Section 26 of the Act deals with the confirmation of a teacher on probation. The relevant part of the aforesaid section is as follows :- "26 (2) Every teacher appointed under sub-section (1) shall, in the first instance, be on probation for such period as may be prescribed and he shall not be confirmed- (a) if he is a teacher of the University except by the order of the Executive Council after considering the reports of the Vice-Chancellor and the Head of the Department, unless he himself is the Head of the Department, and the Dean concerned; and (b) if he is a teacher of an affiliated college, except by the order of the Management after considering the report of the principal and the senior-most teacher of the subject : Provided that no report under this clause shall be necessary in the case of confirmation of the principal and the report of the principal alone shall be necessary in the case of confirmation of the senior-most teacher." 4. The other section which is material for the purpose of this controversy is Sections 28 (1) and 28 (3). These provisions are quoted below : "28 (1) Every teacher in an affiliated college, shall be appointed under a written contract which shall contain such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. The written contract shall be lodged with the University and a copy thereof shall be furnished each to the management and the teacher concerned. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... (3) Every decision by the Management of an affiliated college, to dismiss or remove from service a teacher, shall be reported forthwith to the Vice-Chancellor and subject to the provisions contained in the Statutes, shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor." Section 30 of the Act says :- "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes may provide for any matter relating to the University and shall, in particular, provide for the following :- (1) conditions under which colleges and other institutions may be affiliated to the University and the conditions under which the affiliation may be withdrawn." ;