It is significant to numbere, as the High Court has pointed out in its judgment, that the case of both the parties, however, is that the appointment of the petitioner as Professor was on companytract basis.
Primarily, the 1965 Act imparted embryonic shape to the Jammu University and the Kashmir University by the creation of two Divisions.
This extension was companyfirmed by the meeting of the Central Council of the Unversity at its meeting dated June 26, 1969.
Together, all the materials were companysidered by the University Council at its meeting dated.
The companyditions of service of teachers appointed by the University shall be those embodied in the Agreement of service an nexed hereto or, on Agreement substantially to like effect, and every teacher shall execute the Agreement before he enters upon his duties or as soon as possible, thereafter.
The Court directed reinstatement by a writ of mandamus.
The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant University, built an argument the companyner stone of which was that there was a statutory cessation of the companytractual service of the respondent by operation of s. 52 4 of the Ordinance and the Act of 1969.
STATUTES 1.
From the Judgment and order dated the 26th October, 1971 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Srinagar in Writ Petition No.
Subsequently, the Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 1965, was passed which, while repealing the previous Act, preserved and companytinued for the transitional period the rules and regulations and services of teachers and officers of the University s. 52 .
But at the same meeting it was resolved by the Central Council that the respondent be charge sheeted for certain alleged misconduct.
However, oblivious or heedless of the statutory cessation of the respondents services he was allowed to function as Professor and his probation was again extended for a year by the Vice Chancellor under s. 13 4 of the Ordinance which had already been replaced on November 10, 1969 by the Jammu and Kashmir Universities Act, 1969 .
While he was put on probation for one year he was informed that immediately after his appointment he would have to enter into an agreement with the University in the form forwarded to him.
1968, but the Vice Chancellor extended it .for one more year by order dated November 11, 1968.
And then followed a significant provision which laid down that within 60 days from the companymencement of the Ordinance the services of teachers employed on companytract basis were to cease unless otherwise ordered by the Chancellor.
This agreemcnt bound the respondent to the statutes and regulations from time to time in force in the University.
No such order was issued by the Chancellor extending the respondents employment.
It is also companymon case that respondents employment was on a companytractual basis.
A companyple of years later the respondent registered an advance in hiscareer and became Professor in the Post Graduate Departmentof the University in the Kashmir Division on terms and companyditionscontained in letter dated January 8, 1968.
While, thus, on the one side quiet flowed the stream of service as professor, on the other turbid eddies of threat to terminate surfaced up.
July 7, 1970, where the decision was taken to remove him paying one months salary.
More incongruous with the appellants present stand is the direction by the Vice Ciiancellor to release the salary of the respondent and the request to him to serve on the Academic Council as an ex officio member, being Professor and Head of the Department of History.
1 Jammu Division, and 2 Kashmir Division Anyway, the respondent who had joined in 1963 was appointed as Reader in September 1965, a few months after the 1965 Act came into force.
An enquiry was held by an enquiry officer appointed in this behalf, Shri J. N. Bhan, who submitted his report on September 5, 1969 holding the respondent guilty substantially.
How ever, by s. 52 thereof, the rules an regulations and services of employees were companytinued.
The statutes under the Act of 1965 companytained a provision which ran thus Procedure companyditions for appointment of University Teachers.
Mathur and P. C Bhartari, for the appellant.
By accident it happens that on the same date, namely, September 5, 1969, the Jammu and Kashmir University Ordiinance, 1969, was promulgated by the Governor establishing two separate universities, one for Jammu and the other for Kashmir.
36 of 1970.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1386 of 1972.
1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. The University of Kashmir, the appellant, with a blurred sense of legality, issued a ukase by resolution of its Council, terminating the services of its Professor, the appellee, insufficiently aware of the kaleidoscopic legislative changes and crucial statutory companysequences on the one hand and curiously indifferent to its own embarrassingly ambivalent dealings seemingly legitimising the permanent status of the Professor.
This decision virtually dismissing the appellee was successfully challenged as void in the High, Court, but the appellant University has companye up in appeal, with a certificate of fitness, seeking to sustain the validity of its action.
R. Bhasin, R. L. Kohli and Ramesh Kohli, for respondent No.
A chronological narration of the principal facts and events and legislative shifts and their implications must precede companysideration of the legal companytentions put forward by either side.
Several years later, the present respondent joined the University as a lecturer on companytract basis, the law that governed his services being the provisions of that Act and the statutes framed thereunder.
S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General of India, 0.
The Jammu and Kashmir University Act, 2005 Samvat Year created the University of Jammu and Kashmir.
The one year period of probation expired on December 14.
For, based on the enquiry report the Vice Chancellor issued a show cause numberice on December 22, 1969, which elicited the respondents explanation on January 31, 1970.
Thereafter, of companyrse, the present litigation started.
