- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. The plaintiff-appellant, Devendra Singh, having remained un-successful in the first appel late court, has preferred this second ap peal.
(2.) THE brief facts are that the appel lant Devendra Singh was appointed as Agricultural Supervisor-cum- Tractor Operator by the Deputy Director of State Farm, Tarai Phoolbagh, on a probation of Six months, on 6th January, 1958. He joined on 8th January, 1958. After com pletion of probationary period, no order of confirmation was passed by the State Government, hence the appellant placed that he stood automatically confirmed on 8th July, 1958. In the year 1961, the State Government transferred the State Farms Tarai, Phoolbagh, to the defendant-respondent University along with its staff. In the deed of grant, it was contemplated that the permanent staff of the State Government employees in the farm shall be taken over by G. B. Pant University on deputation and shall not be dismissed, removed etc. without prior approval in writing of the State Government. For the temporary staff, it was decided that it shall continue in service subject to service rules of the University. It was also stipulated that in case the University intended to ter minate temporary employees, it shall inform the State Government, atleast three months in advance so that the Government may explore the possibility of absorbing such staff in the State services. THE services of the plaintiff were transferred to the University in the year 1961. In November, 1969 the plaintiffs services were terminated by the University by giving one month's notice. This order of termination was challenged. However, subsequently the plaintiff was ap pointed as Officiating Senior Agricultural Inspector and he continued till 12th April, 1972. THE plaintiff's services were again terminated on 10th May, 1974 through an order simpliciter without attaching any stigma. This order was challenged to be illegal and invalid. The defendant's contest was that the suit is barred by Sections 14 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act and that the plaintiff was never appointed on permanent post on probation and he was temporary employee, hence his services were rightly terminated in accordance with the contract. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The lower appellate court reversed the Judgment and decree of the trial court.
(3.) THERE is no force in the defendant's plea that the suit is barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Consequential relief of injunction was sought in the main relief of declaration, hence bar of Section 34 is not attracted. There is also no force in the defendant's plea that the suit is barred by Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act. It is true that the University is autonomous body. However, it was rightly contended that the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India are not applicable to be employees of the University, an autonomous body. Autonomous body like University is also a statutory body and is governed by the statutory Rules and Regulations. Autonomous body cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily. The leading case on the subject is Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College Shamli and others v. Laxmi Narain and others, AIR 1976 SC 888. In this case it was laid down that a contract of personal service cannot or dinarily be specifically enforced and a Court normally would not give a declara tion that the contract subsists. An employee after having been removed from service cannot be deemed to be in service, against the will and consent of the employer. It was further laid down that this rule, however, is subject to three well recognized exceptions: (1) where a public servant is said to be removed from service in contravention of provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. (2) Where a worker is sought to be reinstated on being dismissed under the In dustrial Lawand where a statutory body acts in breach of the statute. (3) Where a statutory body acts in breach or violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute. ";