http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: J.K.CHAUDHURI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R. K. DATTA GUPTA & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/04/1958

BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. SARKAR, A.K.

CITATION:  1958 AIR  722            1959 SCR  455

ACT: University  of  Gauhati, Powers of Principal   dismissed  by Governing  Body  of  College-If  University  can  interfere- Gauhati University Act (Ass.  XVI of 1947), SS. 2, 9, 12 and 21, Statutes of the University, cls. 1, 2 and 3.

HEADNOTE: R  was  appointed  Professor of  Mathematics  in  a  College affiliated   to  the  Gauhati  University.   He  was   later appointed  Principal  of the College.  On  complaints  being made  against  R the Governing Body of the College  held  an enquiry and ordered his dismissal as Principal and Professor of  Mathematics.   R  made  representations  to  the   Vice- Chancellor  of  the  Gauhati University  and  the  Executive Council of the University appointed a committee to report on the  propriety of the action taken.  Upon the report of  the committee that there was no reasonable ground justifying the dismissal  of R, the Executive Council passed  a  resolution directing the Governing Body to reinstate R : Held, that the Executive Council acted without  jurisdiction in  so far as it interfered with the action taken against  R as  the  Principal of the College.  The  Gauhati  University Act,  1947, and the Statutes framed under s.  21(g)  thereof made  a  distinction  between a  Principal  and  a  teacher. Clause  3(g)(v)  Of  the Statutes  empowered  the  Executive Council  to  interfere  only with the action  taken  by  the Governing  Body of an affiliated College against  a  teacher and not with action taken against a Principal.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.321 of 1957. 456 Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated June 13, 1956, of the Assam High Court in Civil Rule No.  80 of 1955. Ranadeb Chaudhury and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. N.   C.Chatterjee,  and Naunit Lal, for respondents  Nos.  2 and 3. Naunit Lal, for respondent No. 1.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

1958.   April  7. The following Judgment of  the  Court  was delivered by KAPUR J.-This is an appeal by special leave brought by J. K. Chaudhuri  for and on behalf of the Governing Body  of  Guru Charan  College, Silchar (which will be referred to in  this judgment as the College) against a judgment and order of the High  Court  of  Judicature in Assam dated  June  13,  1956, dismissing  the  appellant’s petition under  Art.  226.   It raised  the  question  as to the nature and  extent  of  the jurisdiction  of the Executive Council of the University  of Gauhati  in  regard  to disciplinary  action  taken  by  the Governing  Body of the College against its Principal, R.  K. Datta Gupta, respondent No. 1. In  1937,  respondent  No.  I  was  appointed  Professor  of Mathematics in the college.  He was appointed Vice-Principal in   1947   and   Principal  in  1950.    Due   to   certain representations   made   to  the  Governing   Body   against respondent No. 1, a committee was appointed by the Governing Body  to enquire into the allegations.  This committee  held several  sittings and made a report after considering  which the Governing Body held a prima facie case made out  against him,  placed  him under suspension and called  upon  him  to answer the charges within 15 days.  This he failed to do but later on submitted an explanation which was duly considered. As  fresh  material  was  disclosed  after  the  suspension, respondent   No.1  was  called  upon  to  give   a   further explanation.   He  then requested for the  previous  charges being  decided before enquiry into fresh charges  was  made. The  Governing Body held a meeting on November 1, 1953,  and after considering 457 the   matter  found  him  guilty  of  moral  turpitude   and dishonesty  and also gross negligence of duty,  inefficiency and  insubordination and ordered his dismissal as  Principal and Professor of Mathematics of the college. r, On  November 30, 1953, respondent No. I filed a  suit  being Title  Suit No. 282 of 1953, in the Court of  Munsif  Sadar, Silchar, challenging the legality of the proceedings of  the committee  appointed  by  the  Governing  Body  and  of  the proceedings  and  decision  taken by it and  prayed  for  an injunction  restraining the Governing Body  from  appointing another   Principal.   He  also  applied  for  a   temporary injunction.   This suit was transferred to the Court of  the Subordinate Judge U. A. D., at Silchar and was renumbered as Title  Suit No. 10 of 1954 which has not yet  been  decided. On November 11, 1953, respondent No. I made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the Gauhati University against his dismissal and prayed that the Governing Body be directed not to fill up the post of Principal pending the disposal of his appeal which was filed on November 30, 1953, and which was a reiteration of the allegations made by him in the plaint  in the  suit  in  the Court of  Munsif  Sadar.   The  Executive Council of the University, i. e., respondent No. 2 thereupon appointed  under para. 3(h) of the Statutes framed under  s. 21(g)  of  the Gauhati University Act (Assam  XV1  of  1947) (hereinafter called the Act) a committee, respondent No.  3, consisting  of the Vice-Chancellor, the Director  of  Public Instruction and the Legal Remembrance of the State of  Assam to  report  on  the propriety of the  action  taken.   After considering  the matter and giving full opportunity to  both sides  respondent No. 3 on March 30, 1955, made a report  to respondent No. 2 that: " there was no reasonable ground justifying the dismissal of Shri R. K. Datta Gupta from the post of the Principal,  Guru Charan College Silchar."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

On April 20,1955, this report was accepted by respondent No. 2 and it passed the following resolution : "..................  Resolved  that  the  findings  of   the Committee  be accepted and in view of the facts that Sri  R. K. Datta Gupta was not dismissed on any 458 reasonable  grounds,  the  Governing  Body  be  directed  to reinstate him before 31st July, 1955." Against this order the Governing Body of the college   filed a petition under Art. 226 in the High Court of Assam but the petition was dismissed on June 13,1956. Although  in  the High Court the  appellant  challenged  the power  of the University to interfere with the  decision  of the Governing Body of the college removing respondent No.  I both   from   Principalship  and   from   Professorship   of Mathematics,  in this Court the arguments were  confined  to the former only.  The two categories, it was submitted, were distinct and were dealt with in the Act and the Statute made thereunder   separately.   The  Principal  was  merely   the administrative  head  of the ’College and a  teacher  solely engaged  in  imparting  instructions.   The  Act   therefore contemplates  their  discharging  different  functions.   To support  this contention, various provisions of the Act  and the Statutes made under the Act were referred to.  The words " Principal " and " Teacher"’ are defined in s.   2  of  the Act : "  2  (h)  I Principal’ means the head  of  a  College,  and includes  where  there is no Principal, the person  for  the time  being duly appointed to act as Principal, and, in  the absence of the Principal, a Vice-Principal duly appointed as such.  ....................................... 2(k)  ’Teacher’ includes Professors, Readers, Lecturers  and other persons imparting instructions in the University or in any College or Hall The distinction finds further support from other  provisions of  the  Act which maintain a clear  distinction  between  a Principal  ’ and a ’ Teacher ’. Section 9 of the  Act  deals with  the constitution of the Court which has three  classes of  members:  Ex-Officio  members, Life  Members  and  Other Members.  Principals fall under class I and are mentioned in sub-s.  (vii).   Teachers  come under the  heading  I  Other Members’   enumerated  in  class  111.   In   sub-s.   (xiv) representation is given to ’Teachers’ elected from their own body who are not Professors or Readers of the University. 459 Similarly  in  the  constitution of  the  Executive  Council contained  in  s. 12, a distinction  is  maintained  between Principals who are in class 1, i. e., Ex-officio members and Professors  of the University who are in,; class 11, i.  e., Other  members.  Amongst the former have to be included  two Principals  of  recognised colleges elected from  their  own body  and in Class 11 representation is given to  Professors of  the  University  and none to  the  teachers.   Therefore wherever  the  provisions  of the Act  mention  the  word  a ’Principal’  or  a  ’Teacher’  two  distinct  entities   are indicated and one is not to be included in the other. The  Statutes made under s. 21(g) of the Act  also  maintain this distinction in their various clauses and where the word ’principal’  occurs  it  is  used  in  its  distinctive  and restrictive  sense  and  where the word I  teacher’  or  the phrase ’member of the teaching staff , or any other  similar word or phrase is used the reference is to a teacher and not to  a  principal.   Clause I of  the  Statute  requires  the existence   of  a  Governing  Body  for  each  college   not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

maintained  by  the  University.  Clause  2  (a)  gives  its constitution  which  includes the Principal  and  the  Vice- Principal   as   ex-officio   members  and   so   also   two representatives of the teaching staff to be elected annually showing  that a Principal as such is distinct from a  member of the teaching staff which must necessarily mean  employees of  colleges  engaged in the teaching of  various  subjects. Clause 2 (c) nominates the Principal as the Secretary of the Governing  Body.   Sub-cls. (a), (b), (c) and (d) of  el.  3 deal  with  a  teacher’s appointment, pay,  scales  of  pay, probation and period of appointment.  Sub-el. (e) deals with increments. It provides: " An increment according to the pay scale will be drawn as a matter  of course..................... The increment may  be withheld  on  the  ground  of  unsatisfactory  work  of   an employee..................... " The word ’employee’ here must necessarily refer to a teacher because  it provides for increments according to pay  scales and the withholding of increments for unsatisfactory work of an  employee dealt with in the first four sub-clauses  which in terms apply to a teacher. 460 Sub-cl. (f) deals with the period of service.  Sub-cls (i) and (ii) are as follows: "  (i)  The services of a permanent employee  shall  not  be determined except on reasonable grounds. (ii)  The  services  of a permanent employee  shall  not  be terminated  in the course of an academic session  except  on very  special  grounds,  such  as  moral  turpitude,  proved incapacity and inefficiency. If  the Governing Body of a college considers  it  advisable that  the  services  of  a  permanent  employee  should   be terminated  on  any of the grounds mentioned in  clause  (g) (ii),  the  matter  shall  be  forthwith  reported  to   the Executive Council ". The use of the phrase ’academic session’ indicates that  the ’Permanent  employee’  must  be  a  person  connected   with teaching  for otherwise it lacks meaning.  The  language  of sub-cl. (g) (iii) which is as follows: "A  teacher  whose services are dispensed  with  on  grounds other than those mentioned in clause (g) (ii) shall be  paid compensation  equal to as many months’ pay as the number  of completed  years  of his service, subject to  a  maximum  of twelve  months’ pay " further supports  this  interpretation that  a ’permanent employee’ mentioned in sub- el. (g)  (ii) refers  to  a teacher and to no one else.  This  is  further strengthened by the use of the word ’teacher’ in sub-cl. (g) (iv) which provides for the procedure for an enquiry where a teacher  has to be dismissed, suspended or reduced  in  pay. Sub-cl.  (g)  (v) reserves to the Executive Council  of  the University the power to enquire into causes of dismissal  of a  teacher whether on its own motion or on an appeal by  the teacher.  Sub-el. (h) which is in the following words: "All  cases of dismissal, suspension, or any  other  serious grievance  of  the teaching staff will be  considered  by  a Committee of the following members uses the words " teaching staff  "  and this again shows that the reference is  to the teacher  and  not to a Principal because el. 3  taken  as  a whole  clearly  deals with the conditions of  service  of  a teacher, compensation to be paid to him and the procedure to be followed 461 in  cases of disciplinary action taken against  him.   These words  cannot  in- the context in which they appear  in  the Statutes or in the context of the language of the Act itself

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

have  reference  to  anybody  other than  a  member  of  the teaching staff, i. e., teacher.  It shows therefore that  in cl.  3  of  the  Statute where  the  expression  used  is  " permanent employee " or the "teacher" or " teaching staff  " the reference is to members of the college who are  teachers as  such and it hag no application to any other employee  of the college such as a Principal. Deka J. was of the opinion that as respondent No. I held two capacities-that  of  the  Principal and  membership  of  the teaching staff, respondent No. 2 could order his restoration to both the offices because the two capacities could not  be separated.   As shown above the two capacities are  distinct with separate functions and have been separately dealt  with in  the Act and the Statutes under the Act and  the  learned judge was in error in holding otherwise.  Sarjoo Parshad  C. J.  gave  to the phrase I permanent employee’  used  in  the Statutes an extended meaning so as to include a Principal as well as a college teacher.  This again is an  interpretation which is contrary to the interpretation which stems from the analysis  we  have given above and is  therefore  erroneous. Relying  on  sub-el,  3(h)  of  the  Statutes  counsel   for respondent No. 2 contended that as respondent No. I was a so a  member  of  the  teaching  staff  being  a  Professor  of Mathematics his case fell within the wordsor any    other serious grievance of the teaching staffThese     words refer to grievances which a memberof the    teaching  staff may have in his capacity of ateacher  and not in any  other capacity  and these words cannot be extended to include  the grievances  of a teacher in connection with something  which is  dehors the words of the clause and would  not  therefore include  his grievances which he may have if he is also  the Principal. As has been pointed out above the relevant provisions of the Act and of the Statutes made under 59 462 s.21(g)  of  the  Act show the separate  capacities  of  the Principal  and the Teacher.  The jurisdiction of  respondent No.  2 to interfere with the action taken by  the  Governing Body  arises  only in the case of a teacher  and  would  not extend  to  a  case where the same person  holds  these  two offices,  as  there  is  no provision in  the,  Act  or  the Statutes  giving  the University such  power  to  interfere. Consequently so far as Respondent No. 2 interfered with  the action taken by the Governing Body against respondent No.  1 in  his  capacity as the Principal of the college  it  acted without jurisdiction and therefore that part of the order of respondent No. 2 and the judgment of the High Court to  that extent  cannot  be  sustained  and  must  be  set  aside  as respondent No. 2 there acted in excess of jurisdiction. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, modify the order  of the  High Court and hold that the order of respondent No.  2 in  regard to respondent No. I qua his office  as  Principal was  without jurisdiction and the order of reinstatement  of respondent No. 1 by the University to the post of  Principal must  be  set  aside.  As the  special  leave  was  directed against the judgment of the High Court both in regard to the office of Principal and the office of teacher of the college and  it  was  at the stage of arguments that  the  case  was confined  to  the ’ Principal’ of the  college,  the  proper order for costs should be that the parties do bear their own costs in this Court as well as in the High Court.                Appeal allowed.                      463

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6