LAWS(SC)-1989-1-35

KANYA MAHAVIDYALAYA DEGREE COLLEGE Vs. SAVITRITRIPATHI

Decided On January 17, 1989
Kanya Mahavidyalaya Degree College Appellant
V/S
Savitritripathi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and the order of the high court dated 31/07/1979 dismissing the second appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and the order of the first appellate court.

(2.) The respondent was employed as a teacher in the appellants' degree college. Her services were terminated by an order dated 20/03/1964. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Agra to which the appellants college was affiliated refused to grant approval to the order of termination. Even though the order of termination was not approved by the Vice-Chancellor, the appellants did not permit the respondent to join her duties. The respondent thereupon filed a suit for injunction and declaration that she continued in the service of the College. The trial court granted injunction but refused to grant declaration. On appeal by the respondent, the first appellate court granted declaration in favour of the respondent holding that since the order of termination was disapproved by the Vice-Chancellor the respondent stood confirmed in her service in terms of clause (8 of Statute 30 of Ch. XVIII of the Agra university Hand Book. On a second appeal preferred by the appellants, the High court upheld the view taken by the first appellate court. Hence this appeal.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that the High court has rightly held that where the action or decision of the Committee of Management was expressly disapproved by the vice-Chancellor, the notice of termination served on the teacher was rendered nugatory, as a consequence thereof, the respondent-teacher became confirmed in her appointment ipso facto by the mere efflux of time. Having regard to the provisions of Statute 30 (8 of Ch. XVIII of the Agra University Hand Book, we fully agree with the view taken by the High court. We see no infirmity in the impugned order. We accordingly, dismiss the appeal. There will be no orders as to costs.