Supreme Court settles the mandatory requirement of prior approval for termination of teachers in private unaided colleges: Lal Bahadur Gautam vs. State of U.P. (2019) INSC 426 (08 May 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 08 May 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 426
Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Navin Sinha, J.
Can a private unaided college terminate a teacher without prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question, emphasizing the importance of statutory compliance in matters of teacher termination. The Court held that prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor is mandatory for the termination of teachers in private unaided colleges affiliated with Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. This judgment underscores the need for adherence to the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha, with Justice Navin Sinha authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Lal Bahadur Gautam, was a lecturer at a private unaided college affiliated with Chaudhary Charan Singh University (CCS University) in Meerut. The college terminated his services on 04.06.2015 without obtaining prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor as mandated by Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (the Act). The appellant challenged this termination. The Vice-Chancellor, on 16.07.2016, set aside the termination order, citing the violation of Section 35(2) of the Act and Rule 16.06 of the University Regulations. The Vice-Chancellor granted liberty to the college to conduct departmental proceedings against the appellant. Subsequently, the college conducted departmental proceedings and issued a fresh termination order on 24.04.2017, again without seeking prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor. The appellant then challenged this second termination order.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially approached the Vice-Chancellor of CCS University, who, on 16.07.2016, set aside the first termination order dated 04.06.2015. The Vice-Chancellor noted the lack of prior approval under Section 35(2) of the Act and Rule 16.06 of the University Regulations. The college was, however, allowed to conduct departmental proceedings. After the departmental proceedings, the college issued a fresh termination order on 24.04.2017, which was again challenged by the appellant. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, stating that it was not maintainable against a private unaided college. The Supreme Court then heard the appeal against the High Court’s order.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. This section stipulates the conditions of service for teachers in affiliated or associated colleges not maintained by the government or local authority. Section 35(2) of the Act states:

“35. Conditions of service of teachers of affiliated or associated colleges other than those maintained by Government or local authority. –
(1) Every teacher in an affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government) shall be appointed under a written contract which shall contain such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. The contract shall be lodged with the University and a copy thereof shall be given to the teacher concerned, and another copy thereof shall be retained by the college concerned.
(2) Every decision of the Management of such college to dismiss or remove a teacher or to reduce him in rank or to punish him in any other manner shall before it is communicated to him, be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor.”

This provision mandates that any decision by the college management to dismiss or remove a teacher must be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and approved by them before it takes effect. The Act ensures that the college adheres to the rules and regulations set by the University.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The termination was in violation of Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, as no prior approval was obtained from the Vice-Chancellor.
• The High Court erred in holding that the writ petition was not maintainable.
• The earlier order of termination dated 04.06.2015 was set aside by the Vice-Chancellor on 16.07.2016 for the same reason, and this order had attained finality.
• The termination was also in violation of Rule No. 16.06 of the University Regulations.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• 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 of India.
• There can be no enforcement of a contract of personal service, as there was a simple relationship of master and servant.
• Departmental proceedings were held in accordance with law.
• The managing committee of the college was not a statutory body.
• Reliance was placed on Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others vs. Lakshmi Narain and others, (1976) 2 SCC 58, to support their argument that the college was not bound by the statutes.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was straightforward, focusing on the violation of the statutory provision. The respondent’s argument was innovative in the sense that it tried to establish that a private unaided college was not bound by the statute.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the termination of the appellant was in violation of Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provision:

• Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973: The Court emphasized that this section mandates prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor before terminating a teacher in an affiliated or associated college.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others vs. Lakshmi Narain and others, (1976) 2 SCC 58: The Court held that this case was completely misplaced. The Court stated that the case was decided under the Agra Universities Act, 1926, which had no similar provisions as Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The Court also noted that the Agra Universities Act, 1926, was repealed by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the statutory mandate of Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The Court emphasized that the college, being affiliated with the University, was bound by the provisions of the Act. The Court also noted that the college had accepted the Vice-Chancellor’s order setting aside the first termination and was therefore obligated to comply with the statutory requirements. The court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• Statutory Compliance: The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 35(2) of the Act, which requires prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor before terminating a teacher.
• Binding Nature of Vice-Chancellor’s Order: The Court held that the college was bound by the Vice-Chancellor’s order dated 16.07.2016, which had set aside the first termination order.
• Rejection of Misplaced Reliance: The Court rejected the respondent’s reliance on Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others vs. Lakshmi Narain and others, (1976) 2 SCC 58, stating that it was based on a repealed act and had no application to the present case.
• Duty of Counsel: The Court expressed strong disapproval of the respondent’s counsel for relying on a judgment based on a repealed Act, emphasizing the duty of counsel to assist the Court with accurate information.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the statutory requirement of prior approval as paramount. The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the college was not bound by the statute. The Court also rejected the argument that the relationship between the college and the teacher was merely that of a master and servant. The court also emphasized the need for the counsel to provide correct information to the court and not mislead the court.

The Court’s decision was based on a straightforward interpretation of the law and the facts of the case. The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The decision was reached by applying the statutory provision to the facts of the case.

The Court’s decision was clear and unambiguous. The Court held that the termination was illegal because it was in violation of Section 35(2) of the Act.

The Court provided the following reasons for the decision:

• The college failed to obtain prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor as mandated by Section 35(2) of the Act.
• The college was bound by the Vice-Chancellor’s order dated 16.07.2016, which had set aside the first termination order.
• The college’s reliance on Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and others vs. Lakshmi Narain and others, (1976) 2 SCC 58 was misplaced.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “A bare reading of the statutory provision makes it manifest that prior approval of the Vice­Chancellor was mandatory before termination of the appellant.”
• “The college having accepted the order of the Vice­Chancellor 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.”
• “Reliance on Lakshmi Narain (supra) is completely misplaced. It has no application whatsoever to the present case either on facts or in law.”

There were no dissenting or concurring opinions.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is significant because it clarifies the mandatory nature of Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The judgment also highlights the importance of statutory compliance in matters of teacher termination in private unaided colleges. The judgment could have implications for future cases involving similar issues.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. The Court simply applied the existing statutory provision to the facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• Private unaided colleges affiliated with CCS University must obtain prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor before terminating a teacher.
• Failure to obtain prior approval renders the termination illegal.
• Colleges are bound by the orders of the Vice-Chancellor.
• Counsel have a duty to assist the Court with accurate information.
• Reliance on overruled or repealed laws is not permissible.

The judgment reinforces the importance of statutory compliance and could lead to greater scrutiny of termination decisions in private unaided colleges. It also sends a message to the legal fraternity that they have a duty to assist the Court with correct information.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The termination order dated 24.04.2017 was set aside.
• The appellant was held entitled to reinstatement.
• The respondent management was not precluded from proceeding afresh in accordance with law from the stage of irregularity.
• The Vice-Chancellor shall consider any request for approval on its own merits without being influenced by any observation in the present order.
• The question of back wages shall abide by any decision of the Vice-Chancellor.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor is mandatory before terminating a teacher in a private unaided college affiliated with the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. This judgment reinforces the statutory requirement and does not change any previous position of law but clarifies the applicability of the statute.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the termination of the appellant was illegal due to the violation of Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The Court emphasized the mandatory requirement of prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor for the termination of teachers in private unaided colleges affiliated with CCS University. The judgment underscores the importance of statutory compliance and the duty of counsel to assist the Court with accurate information.