G F PAPALI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF TRAVANCORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution filed by Dr.G.F. Papali, questioning the termination of his services as Professor and Head of the Department of English in the Fatima Mata National College, Quilon. The Bishop of Quilon who is the 2nd respondent is impleaded as the proprietor and patron on the institution. The 3rd respondent is the College Managing Board represented by its Secretary and Principal. The main prayers in the petition are:

(2.) The petitioner had taken the M.A. degree in English language and literature and the Ph. D. (Internal Arts) in English of the University of London. He had, after a total of 34 years service, retired in February 1953 as the Principal of the Government College, Chittur, Cochin. Soon thereafter the Fatima Mata National College, Quilon, which was then being started as a First Grade College affiliated to the University of Travancore requisitioned his services and he joined duty on 1.6.1953. Ext. VII is the order appointing him dated 28.5.1953. It mentioned the petitioners tenure of service as permanent but it incorporated by reference Ext. IV the Service Rules of the College which provided for the termination of the appointment by 3 months notice on either side. It is on basis of this liberty reserved in Ext. IV that Ext. II notice of termination of service, impugned herein, was issued by the College management to the petitioner on 29.2.1956. According to the petitioner his appointment was governed by special considerations and the terms, not all embodied in Ext. VIII appointment order, were settled directly with the Biship, Patron. So much so the expression permanently in Ext. VII really meant, till 60 - the age of superannuation of teachers in Colleges admitted to the privileges of the University. The question of 3 months notice could not and did not therefore arise in his case. The petitioner characterised the procedure adopted by the management as a manipulated affair and as wanting in good faith.

(3.) The main contest was raised by the 2nd and 3rd respondents on the basis that the College was not maintained out of a public trust or by any contribution from public funds but was owned by the Bishop and run entirely with his private funds and that therefore they were not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. On the merits they asserted that the order of appointment as explained by the Service Rules comprehended the entire terms and conditions of the petitioners service and so understood, the termination of service was unquestionable. There was according to them, a breach of contract at worst, and the remedy of the petitioner lay if at all only by ordinary action in court.