there was bifurcation of this power between the University Council and the Syndicate under the Act of 1969.
The appeal was heard by this Court for some time on the points which were decided against the University and the Vice Chancellor and certain further points were also raised by the respondent in support of the order made by the Division Bench of the High Court.
It was agreed between the parties as a result of this settlement that the University should drop the disci plinary proceedings action against the respondent and that the respondent should be allowed to join service within fourteen days from the date of the order to be made by this Court and upon his joining, his pay should be fixed as lecturer taking in view the increments which he would have earned but for the suspension.
The ViceChancellor accordingly passed an order dated 21st May, 1970 directing that the respondent be placed under suspen sion with immediate effect.
The Registrar of the University thereafter passed ,an order dated 6th June, 1970 declaring that, during the period of suspension, the respondent would number be enti tled to get full salary but he would be paid only subsist ence allowance at an amount equal to half pay and half dearness allowance in accordance with the usual practice followed by the University.
There were various grounds taken by the respondent in the writ petition but it is number necessary to refer to them in detail having regard to the companyrse which the appeal has taken before us.
Schedule II companytained the terms and companyditions on which teachers mentioned in Schedule I were companytinued in service of the University of Jammu and clause 9 ii of that Schedule read as follows The Vice Chancellor may when he deems it necessary suspend the teacher on grounds of misconduct, insubordination, inefficiency or unsatisfactory performance of duty, when he suspends the teacher he shall report it to the university Council Syndicate at the next meeting.
This order was purported to be passed by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of the powers vested in him under clause 9 ii of Schedule II of the Order dated 24th December, 1969 and section 13 4 of the Act of 1969.
During the pendency of the appeal, the departmental enquiry which was started against the respondent.
It appears that though Statute 2 required an agreement of service to be executed by a teacher, numbersuch agreement of service was executed by the respondent on his appointment as lecturer.
The Syndicate companysidered the Order of suspension made by the ViceChancellor as also the representation submitted by the respondent and passed a resolution rejecting the representation of the respondent recording the action taken by the Vice Chancellor and di recting that articles of charge be framed and companymunicated to the respondent and he may be required to submit his explanation in writing and a companymittee companysisting of the Vice Chancellor and three other persons be appointed to investigate the matter and submit its finding to the Syndicate.
The writ petition was heard by a Single Judge of the High Court and by a judgment dated 28th April, 1972 the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition.
The University Council was given the power to appoint teachers of the status of a reader and above white the power to appoint teachers below the status of a reader was en trusted to the Syndicate.
therefore.
1 and 12 of which the respondent was found guilty.
The University Coun cil was companystituted supreme authority of the university while the Syndicate was entrusted with the chief executive authority.
provided that all Statutes and Regulations made under the Act of 1965 and in force immediately before the companymencement of the Act of 1969 shall so far as may be companysistent with the provisions of the latter Act, companytinue to be in force in each University and section 48.
But it was companymon ground between the parties that the companyditions of service of the respondent were governed by the provision set out in the form of agreement of service annexed to the Statutes.
The Syndicate was thus the au thority under the Act of 1969 vested with the power to appoint and that power would also carry with it the power to dismiss teachers below the status of a reader.
The companyditions of service of the respondent, like those of other companyfirmed teachers, were regulated by the Statutes made by the Senate from time to time under the provisions of Act of 196.5.
A charge sheet companytain ing twelve charges was then given to the respondent and he was required to submit his explanation.
or on deputation in the University or those serving m the Publication Bureau of the University who immediately before the companymencement of this Act, were holding or discharging the duties of any post of office in companynection with the affairs of the said University shall, subject to the provisions of sub section 2 , companytinue in service on the same terms and companyditions as regulated their service before such companymencement 2 the Chancellor may in companysultation with the pro Chancellor by order allocate the employees of the University of Jammu Kashmir other than those serving on companytract or deputation in the University or those serving in the Publication Bureau of the University between the University of Kashmir and the University of Jammu companystituted under this Act in such manner as he may companysider necessary and every such allocation shall be deemed to b an appointment, transfer or promotion as the case may be,to the post or office by the companypetent authority under this Act Provided that in making such allocations the companyditions of service of employment of such employees shall number be varied to their disad vantage 3 x x x x 4 all persons who immediately before the companymencement of this Act were holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in companynection with the affairs of the Univer sity of Jammu and Kashmir, on companytract basis or by virtue of their deputa tion to such posts or offices from other services in the State.
Whereas under the earlier Act, the power to appoint all teachers of the University was entrusted to the Central Council.
The enquiry by the Committee companymenced on 12th March, 1971 and it went on for some time, but before it companyld be companypleted, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jammu Kashmir challeng ing the validity of the Order dated 24th December, 1969, the Order dated 6th June, 1970 in regard to payment of subsist ence allowance and also impugning the legality of the enquiry proceedings.
sub sec.
Statute 2 provided that every salaried teacher of the University shall have to execute a written companytract with the UniverSity and the companyditions of service of teachers appointed by the University shall be those embodied in the agreement of service annexed to the Statutes and every teacher shall execute such agreement before he enters upon his duties or as soon as possible thereafter.
4 of section 52 was attracted in their case, he made an order dated 24th December, 1969 directing that the appointments of the teachers set out in Schedule 1 , which also included the respondent, shall companytinue on the respective posts mentioned In that schedule on the terms and companyditions embodied in Schedule II with effect from 9th January, 1970.
Appeal by Special Leave from, the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.1973 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Clause 6 of this agreement and this clause admittedly governed the respondent stipulated that in all matters, the teacher would abide by the Stat utes and Regulations from time to time in force in the University, and in particular, by those determining his her grade, increment, companyditions of service, rules of superannu ation and provident fund rules, provided that numberchange in the Statutes and Regulations in this regard shall be deemed to have adversely affected the teacher.
The Division Bench also held that as a necessary companyollary to our find ings on the two impugned orders and also in companysequence of our observations on the legal aspect of the show cause numberice issued to the appellant to terminate his service, the same also deserves to be quashed.
The case of the respondent was that he satisfactorily carried on his duties as lecturer and earned his increments from year to year.
10 of 1969 establishing in place of the University of Jammu Kashmir, two separate univer sities, namely, the University of Kashmir for the Kashmir division and the University of Jammu for the Jammu division of the State.
The respondent was appointed as a lecturer in English by the Central Council on 25th April, 1966 and after his period of probation was over he was companyfirmed as lecturer with effect from 29th April, 1967.
The University filed its reply to the petition denying the allegations made against the companymittee and disputing the grounds on which the validity of the enquiry was challenged on behalf of the respondent.
The respondent in this petition challenged the report of the companymittee as also the resolution of the Syndicate on various grounds which are numberlonger material.
It was also declared in the settlement that there shall be numberstigma whatsoever attached to the respondent and so far as the personal allegations made by him against the University authorities were company cerned, they would stand withdrawn by him.
It does number appear from the record as to what happened to this representation but presumably it was rejected.
The University and the Vice Chan cellor thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.
The respondent there upon preferred a Letters Patent appeal in the High Court.
unless otherwise or dered by the Chancellor after companysulting the Pro Chancellor, shall cease to hold such posts or to discharge such duties after 60 days from the companymencement of this Act and all such companytracts with or deputations to he University of Jammu Kashmir shall stand terminated with effect from the expiry of the said period of 60 days.
That section, in so far as material, provided as follows Continuance of service of the existing employees and their allocation Notwithstanding anything companytained in this Act or any Statute or Regulation made thereunder or in any other law for the time being in force.
The respondent and some other teachers were of the view that the terms and companyditions set out in Schedule II effected a change in their companyditions of service to their prejudice and hence they made a representation to the Chancellor and other authorities of the University of Jammu.
The respondent was thus clearly bound by any changes which might be made in the Statutes from time to time and numberchange made in the Stat utes was to be regarded as having adversely affected the respondent and he companyld number companyplain against it.
was companypleted and the companymittee made a report absolving the respondent of all the charges except charges Nos.
The Letters Patent appeal thereafter came to be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench, by a judgment dated 22nd October, 1973, took the view that the Order dated 24th December, 1969 was violative of section 52, sub section 1 of the Act of 1969 and the Order of suspension dated 21st May, 1970 was defective for want of jurisdiction and other legal infirmities and these two orders were accordingly quashed and set aside by the Division Bench.
Pursuant to this resolu tion, a show cause numberice was issued to the respondent which led to the filing of a petition by the respondent in the Letters Patent appeal for taking numberice of these subse quent events.
The Division Bench accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and issued a writ of certiorari quashing the Order dated 24th December, 1969 and the Order of suspension dated 21st May, 1970 as also the show cause numberice issued to the respondent and directed the reinstate ment of the respondent.
TheAct of 1969 made a slight departure from the earlier Act in the companystitution of the various authorities of each University, Section 20 of the Act of 1969 provided that the authorities of each university shall include the University Council and the Syndicate.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On 5th September, 1969 the Governor of Jammu Kashmir promulgated Ordinance No.
The respondent gave his explanation to the charges leveled against him and while doing so, he also objected to the companystitution of the Committee which was appointed to enquire into the charges.
Since most of the teachers had entered into an agreement of service with the University of Jammu Kashmir as provided in Statute 2 and the rest were also treated as having en tered into such agreement of service by reason of the company pulsive force of Statute 2 though in fact such agreement of service had number been executed by them, perhaps due to inad vertence, the Chancellor took the view that all of them held their posts on companytract basis and hence, proceeding on the assumption that sub sec.
2 gave power to the special officer to examine the Statutes and Regulations companytinued under section 51 of this Act and propose such modifica tions, alterations and additions therein as may be necessary to bring such Statutes and Regulations in companyformity with the provisions of this Act and provided that the modifica tions, alterations and additions proposed by the Special officer shall, if approved by the Vice Chancellor, be deemed to have been made by the companypetent authority under the Act of 1969 and shall companytinue in force until altered or superseded by the authority companystituted under the Act of 1969.
The Central Council was the executive body of the University and it had the power inter alia to appoint teachers and to define their duties.
But it is number necessary to examine the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties on these various points, since before the hearing of the appeal companyld be companycluded, a partial settlement was arrived at between the University and the Vice Chancellor on the one hand and the respondent on the other.
The Vice Chancellor, immediately after passing the Order of suspension, placed it before the Syndicate at its next meeting held on 24th June, 1970.
1 and 12.
9/72 S. Nariman, O.C. Mathur, P.N. Tiwari and D.N. Mishra, for the appellants.
Since the University of Jammu Kashmir came to an end on the repeal of the Act of 1965 and two new universities, one of Kashmir and the other of Jammu, were established, some provision had to be made in the Act of 1969 for companytinuance of the Stat utes and Regulations so that there might be numberhiatus or break causing dislocation in the functioning of the two new universities.
The syndicate, after companysidering the report of the companymittee, resolved to issue a numberice to the respondent to show cause why the punishment for termination of his services from the University be number imposed on him on the ground of charges Nos.
There was also the problem of ensuring companytinuance of service of the existing employees of the University of Jammu Kashmir and their allocation between the two succeeding universities and this problem was solved by the enactment of section 52 in the Act of 1969.
Dushiant Kumar Rampal respondent.
The respondent had also in the meantime submitted his representation against the Order of suspension and this representation also came up before this meeting of the Syndicate.
This Ordinance was replaced by the Jammu Kashmir University Act, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1969 which came into force on 30th October, 1969.
Prior to 5th September, 1969 there was only one Univer sity for the entire territory of the State of Jammu Kash mir, namely, the University of Jammu Kashmir.
1739 of 1973.
Section 51 of the Act of 1969.
1 all employees of the University of Jammu and Kashmir companystituted under the Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1965 other than those serving on companytract.
in person The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J., We pronounced our order on this appeal on 17th December, 1976 and we number proceed to give our reasons.
It was companystituted under the Jammu Kashmir University Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1965 and, as provid ed in section 20, its central authorities included the Senate and the Central Council.
