Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1978 DIGILAW 5 (CAL)

In re: L. N. Birla v. University of Calcutta

1978-01-04

AMIYA KUMAR MUKHERJI

body1978
Order This Rule is directed against an order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 30.9.77 by which the Hony. Secretary of the Birla College of Science and Education was directed to stay the order of dismissal of the two lecturers of the said college who had been dismissed with immediate effect on the basis of the report of an Enquiry Committee. 2. It appears that against the said order of dismissal the two lecturers have preferred appeals under S. 12 of West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975 on the same day i.e. on 30.9.77. 3. It is contended by Mr. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners the president and the members of the Governing Body of the said college, that the University has got no power to grant any stay order pending the final disposal of the appeal preferred by the teachers. 4. Sub-section 2 of S. 12 provides that the University shall, after giving the teacher and the Governing Body of the college an opportunity of being heard, pass such order as it thinks fit. The powers which have been conferred by sub-s. (2) of S. 12 on the University with widest possible amplitude must carry with it by necessary implication all powers and duties incidental and necessary to make the exercise of those powers fully effective. When an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employing such means as are essentially necessary to its execution. 5. So, in my opinion, the University has got the power to grant stay of the order appealed against by the teachers under sub-s. (2) of S. 12 of the Act. But exercise of such powers under sub-s. (2) of S. 12 is on condition that the Governing Body of the College and the teacher shall be given an opportunity of being heard before such order is passed. In the instant case no opportunity of being heard as contemplated under sub-s. (2) of S. 12 was given either to the Governing Body of the College or to the teachers concerned. That being so, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and must be quashed. This order, however, shall not prevent the University to pass a fresh order in compliance with sub-s. (2) of S. 12 of the Act. 6. In the result, this Rule is made absolute. The impugned order is quashed. That being so, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and must be quashed. This order, however, shall not prevent the University to pass a fresh order in compliance with sub-s. (2) of S. 12 of the Act. 6. In the result, this Rule is made absolute. The impugned order is quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.