# Petitions dismissed~ J. K. CHAUDHURI • ' v. H,, K. DATTA GUPT:k & OTlIERS' ' '

- **Citation:** [1959] 1 S.C.R. 455
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1956-06-13
- **Case number:** ; Civil Appeal No. 321 of 1957
- **Bench:** Biiagwati, J. L. Kapur, Sarkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/petitions-dismissed-j-k-chaudhuri-v-h-k-datta-gupt-k-otliers-1665
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

University of Gauhati, powers of-:-Principal dismissed by
Governing Body of College~If University can interfere-'---Gauhati
University Act (Ass. XV I of I947), ss. 2, 9, I2 and ZI, Statutes of
the University, els. I, 2 and 3.
'
·
. ·
R was appointed Professor of Math'ematics 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 artd or:dered 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 gro1V1d
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 Universify Act, 1947, and
the Statutes framed under s. 21(g) thereof made a qistinction
between a Principal and a teacher. Clause 3(g)(v) ofthe Statutes
empowered the Executive Couqcil to interfere only with the action
taken by the Governing Body of an affiliated College against a
teach~ a·nd not with action taken against a Principal.
,.

## Text

<(
'
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
enactment .which was to bring· cbnstruction contracts
x958
within the ambit of the tax;a.tion powers of the State,
Mitha11 Lal
and which failed only for want ·of legislative authority.
v.
Whether we view the notification as one extending aTJwState of Delhi
subsisting statute to Delhi or as extending it with
modifications so far as the impugned provisions are
Venkatar!lma
concerned, it is intra vires s. 2.
·
Aiyar J.
• All the contentions urged by the petitioners having
failed, the petitions are dismissed with costs .
•
.
.
.
Petitions dismissed~
J. K. CHAUDHURI
•
'
v.
,. .
H,, K. DATTA GUPT:k & OTlIERS'
'
'
(BIIAGWATI, J. L. KAPUR and A. K, SARKAR JJ.)
University of Gauhati, powers of-:-Principal dismissed by
Governing Body of College~If University can interfere-'---Gauhati
University Act (Ass. XV I of I947), ss. 2, 9, I2 and ZI, Statutes of
the University, els. I, 2 and 3.
'
·
. ·
R was appointed Professor of Math'ematics 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 artd or:dered 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 gro1V1d
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 Universify Act, 1947, and
the Statutes framed under s. 21(g) thereof made a qistinction
between a Principal and a teacher. Clause 3(g)(v) ofthe Statutes
empowered the Executive Couqcil to interfere only with the action
taken by the Governing Body of an affiliated College against a
teach~ a·nd not with action taken against a Principal.
,.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No.
321 of 1957. . .
•
.April 7.
] . I<. Chaudhuri
v.
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959)
Appeal by special leave from
order elated June 13, 1956, of the
in Civil Rule No. 80 of 1955.
the judgment and
Assam High Court
R. K. Datta Gupta
Rarudeb Chaudhury and D. N. Mukherjee, for the
'"' Others
appellant.
Kapu• j.
N. C. Chatterjee and Naunit Lal, for respondents
Nos. 2 and 3.
N aunit Lal, for respondent No. 1.
•
1958. April 7.
The following Judgment of the
Conrt 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 afl 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 Princi.
pal, R. K. Datta Gupta, respondent No. 1.
In 1937, respondent No. 1 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 enquirj' into
fresh charges was made.
The Governing Body held a
meeting on November 1, 1953, and after considering
•
,
•
SUP<REME COURT REPORTS
457
the matter found him guilty of moral turpitude and
I958
dishonesty and also gross negligence of duty, ineffici- J. J<. Chaudhuri
ency and insubordination and ordered his dismissal as
v.
Principal and Professor of Mathematics .of the college. R. K Datta Gupta
On November 30, 1953, respondent No. 1 filed a suit
& Others
being Title Suit No. 282 of 1953, in the Court of Munsif
Sadar, Silchar, challenging the legality of the proceed-
'Kapur J.
i1igs of the committee appointed by the Governing
Body and of the proceedings and decision taken by it
;:i,nd prayed for an injunction restraining the ~overning
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. 10of1954 which has not yet been decided. On
N ovi:mbe:r 11, 1953, respondent No. 1 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, arid 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. 2l(g) of the Gauhati University Act (Assam XVI of 1947) (hereinafter called '
the Act) a committee, respondent No. 3, consisting of
the Vice-Chancellor, the Director of Public Instruction
and the Legal Remembrancer of the State of Assam to
report on the . propriety of the action taken. Aft'3r
considering the matter and giving full opportunity to.
both sides respond~nt 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." ·
On April 20, 1955, this report was accepted by respondent No. 2 and it passed the following resolution:
11 .................. Resolved that the findings of the
Committee be accepted and in view of the facts that
Sri R. K. Datta Gupta 'Yas · not di~missed on a.ny
•
458
SUP.REME COURT REPORTS
[1959)
z95B
reasonable grounds, the Governing Body be directed
J. J<. Chaudhw'i to reinstate him before 31st July, 1955."
v.
Against this order the Governing Body of the college
R. I<. Datta Gupta filed a petition under Art. 226 in the High Court of
& Othm
Assam but the petition was dismissed on June 13,
](apur ].
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. 1 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 1;olely
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) ' Principal ' means the head of a College,
arid 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 Ha.ll ''.
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 dools 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 'Other Members '
enumerated in class III. In sub-s. (xiv) representation
is given to ' Teachers' elected from their own body
who are not Pr?fossors or ~eaders of the University .
•
•
,
'
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
459
Similarly in .the constitUtion of the Executive Council
I958
contained in s. 12, a distinction is maintained be-
-
P '
· 1
h
·
1
I ·
E
ffi · ]. !(. Chaudhuri
tween
nnmpa s w o are in c ass , i. e.,
x-o cw
members and Professors of the University who are in R. K Da:ia Gupta
class II, i. e., ·other members~· Amongst the former
& Others
have to be included two Principals of recognised
colleges elected from their own body and in Class II
Kapur J.
r~presentation is given to Professors of the University
and none to the teachers. Therefore wherever the
provisions of the Act inen.tion .the word a 'Principal'
or a ' Teacher ' two distinct entities are indicated and
one is not to be included in tJhe other.
The Statutes made under s. 2l(g) of the Act also
maintain this distinction in their various clauses and
where the word 'principal' occurs it is used in its
distiQctive and restrictive sense and where the word
' teacher ' or the phrase ' mejllber 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 1 Of the Statute requires the existence of a
Governing Body for each college not 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-els. (a), (b), (c)
and (d) of cl. 3 deal with a teacher's appointment, pay,
scales of pay, probation and period of appointment.
Sub-cl. (e) deals with increments. It provides:
"An increment according to the pay scale will be
drawn as a matter of course ................. ~ ... The incr:e-
....
ment may be withheld on the gr9und of .unsatisfactory
work of an employee ..................... "
The word 'employee' here must necessarily refer to
a teacher because it provides for increments according
to pa~ scales and the withholding of increments for
unsatisfactory work of an employee dealt with in the
first four sub-cl~uses which in terms apply to a teacher.
.
~
•
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1959)
I958
Sub-cl. (f) deals with the period of service.
Sub-els (i)
K Cl
di . . and (ii) are as follows :
J.
· v'."" "'"
"(i) The ~ervices of a permanent employee shall
R. K. Datta cupta not be determmed except on reasonable grounds.
& Others
(ii) The services of a permanent employee shall
not be terminated in the course of an academic session
Kapur J.
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 c:f 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-cl. (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-cl. (h) which is in the
following words :
" All cases of dismissal, suspension, or any other
serious grievai1ce 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 cl. 3 taken as a whole clearly tleals
with the conditions of service of a teacher, compensation to be paid to him and the procedure to be followed
.
.
•
•
' ..
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
461
in cases of disciplinary action taken against him. These
r958
words cannot in the context in which they appear in
the Statutes or in the context of the language of the J. [(. Choudh,.ri
Act itself _have
refe~·ence to .anybody other than a R. J(. n:;ta r.upta
member of. the teachmg staff, I. e., teacher. It shows
o;, Othm
therefore that in cl. 3 of the Statute where the expression used ii'! "permanent employee" or the "teacher"
'"1P11r J.
or"' teaching staff" the reference is to members of the
college who are teachers as si1Ch and it has no application to any other employee of the college such as a
Principal.
Deka J. was of the opinion that as respondent
Xo. 1 held two capacities-that of the Principal and
membership of the teaching staff, resp~mdent No. 2
could order his restoration to both the offices because
the t";o capacities could not be separated. As shown
above the two capacities are distinct with separate
functions and have been separa.tely 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 'permanent employee' usf'd 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-cl. 3(h) of the Statutes counsel for respondent
No. 2 contended that as respondent No. 1 was also a
member of the teaching .staff being a ProfessQr of
Mathematics his case fell within the words " or any
other serious grievance of the teaching staff". These
words refer to grievances which a member of the
teaching staff may have in his capacity of a teacher
and not in any other capacity and these words cannot
be extended to include the grievances of 11' 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
•
•
462
SUPR'.EME COtJRT '.REPORTS
[1959]
s. 2l(g) of the Act show the separate capacities of the
Princi1)al and the Teacher. The J. urisdiction of resJ. J(, .Chaudhuri
v.
pondent No. 2 to interfere with the action taken by
R. K. Datta Gupta the Governing Body arises only in the case of a teacher
& Othus
and would not extend to a case where the same person
I\.apitr ].
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 · tal}en 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. 1 qua his
office as Principal was without jurisdiction and the order
of re-instatement 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 .
•
•
'!
•
•
•
•
I ...