Holding

Regulations made under the Act have the force of law; termination in breach of Regulation 79 is illegal and the appellant is entitled to reinstatement.

Summary

Vidya Dhar Pandey was appointed principal of a higher secondary school run by Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti in 1968. In June 1971 the managing committee terminated his services with one month’s salary in lieu of notice, without complying with Regulation 79 which required a director’s sanction, a formal enquiry, charge‑sheet and a two‑thirds special meeting. The Divisional Superintendent ordered the termination rescinded, but the school did not reinstate him. The High Court dismissed his writ, holding that the Board’s regulations under Section 28(2)(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1955 had no statutory force and that only damages were available. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that such regulations are subordinate legislation with the force of law; the termination violated Regulation 79 and was therefore illegal, entitling the appellant to reinstatement and back‑pay. The appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside, and the respondent ordered to reinstate the appellant and pay 50 % of his salary from the date of termination.

Issues considered

The regulations framed under Section 28(2)(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1955 have statutory force.
Whether a termination of service in breach of Regulation 79 is illegal and void, warranting a declaration of invalidity and reinstatement.
Whether a privately‑run school receiving full government grant is amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Subjects

termination of serviceeducational regulationsstatutory force of subordinate legislationwrit jurisdictionreinstatementgovernment‑aided private schoolprocedural fairness

Judgment

A VIDYA DHAR PANDE
v.
VIDYUT GRIH SIKSHA SAMITI & ORS.

OCTOBER 10, 1988
B [M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]

Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1955: Sections
28(2)(d) and Regulations 61, 71 and 79 framed thereunder-Regula-
tions have force of law-Termination of services of Higher Secondary
School Principal in contravention of Regulation 79-Held illegal and
C quashed.

The appellant was appointed from July 3, 1968 as principal of the
School run by the respondent society, a body registered under the M.P.
Non-trading Corporation Act, 1962. On June 23, 1971 the appellant's
services were terminated with immediate effect by giving one month's
II> salary in lieu of notice. The appellant made representation to the Divi-
sional Superintendent of Education who directed the Society-to rescind
the order of termination because, according to him, the termination of
the appellant was wrongful being in breach of Regulation 79 of the
Regulations framed by the Board of Secondary Education under Sec-
E lion _28(2)(d) of Madhya Pradesh MadhyamikShiksha Adhiniyam, 1955.
The appellant however was not re-instated by the society.

The appellant therefore filed a petition in the High Court, which
was dismissed. The High Court held that (1) the said Regulations had no
statutory force and therefore the violation in this case of the procedure
prescribed in Regulations 71 and 79 would not render the order of
F termination null and void; (2) the appellant's remedy was only by an
action for damages for breach of master and servant contract; and (3)
the school being run by a private body, no writ of mandamus could be
issued.

Allowing the appeal, it was,

HELD: (1) Section 28(2)(d) of the Act confers power on the
Board to make Regulations regarding the conditions of recognition of
the Institutions as well as for framing of "School Code" to ensure a
minimum standard of efficient and uniform management of such
schools. l447B.C)
11

442
V.D. PANDE v. SIKSHA SAMITI 443

(2) As bas been held by this Court in Sukhdev Singh's case, there A
is no substantial difference between a·rule and a regulation inasmuch as
both are subordinate legislation under powers conferred by the statute.
There is, therefore, no esc!lpe from the conclusion that the regulations,
in the present case, have force of law. [449B I

(3) As .observed in Sukhdev Singh's case, the doctrine of ultra B
vires as applied to statutes, rules and orders should equally apply to the
regulations and any other subordinate legislation. [450G I

(4) The order of termination of the appellant from the post of
Principal of the Higher Secondary School in breach of Regulation 79 is \
illegal and as such the same is liable to be quashed as the Regulations C
have got statutory force. The appellant is liable to be re-instated in the
service as Principal of the said ~chool. [454A-B] .

(5) The Higher Secondary School in question though run by a
private trust receives 100% grant from the Government and as such it is
amenable to the writ jurisdiction for violation of the provisions of the D
said Regulations in passing the order of termination of service of the
appellant. [454B-C]

Dr. Ram Pal Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan, [1970] l SCC 75;
"
Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai, [1971] 2 SCC 192; Sukh-
dev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr., E
(1975] 3 SCR 619; Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh v. A.L. Pandi and
Anr., (1965] 2 SCR 713; Manmohan Singh Jaitla v. Commissioner,
U. T, of Chandigarh & Ors., (1984] Supp. S.C.C. 540; and Indra Pal
v. Managing Committee,, Model Inter College Thora; [1984] 3 SCC
384, referred to.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1697
of 1973. ·

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.1972 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 358 of 1971.
M. Narayan, Mr. B. Shetya and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant. G

S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra, Baldev Krishan Satija and T.C.
Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A RAY, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and
order dated 22nd January, 1972 rendered by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 358 of 1971
dismissing the.writ petition holding that the Regulations framed by the
Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh under Section
28(2)(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1955
IB have no statutory force and as such termination of service in violation
of Regulation Nos. 71 and 79 does not entitle the appellant to a decla-
ration that the termination was illegal and for a direction for his re-
instatement in service.

The matrix of the case in short, is that the appellant was
<I appointed as Head Master by the Managing Committee of Vidyut Grih
Siksha Samiti, Korba o.n probation for a period of one year on a
pay-scale.:[£f.:-R.S:Z5b~10~22o~~:f5o:tl3-20-45d- wliheffecf\fiom
3. 7 .1968. Meanwhile, the High School became a Higher Secondary
School and as such on September 1, 1969 the Managing Committee
appointed the appellant as Principal temporarily on a pay-scale of
D Rs.275-25-300-15-405~EB-20-550-25-700 with effect from July 3, 1968.
The above scale was made applicable to him with retrospective effect
i.e. from July 3, 1968 F.N., the date of his appointment. The appoint-
ment letter further states as follows: ·

"
IE
The appointment will be governed by the rules and regula-
tions laid down by the Education Department of Madhya
Pradesh State Government for the recognised Schools in
the State unless and otherwise specified from time to time.-

The appointment can be terminated on one month's notice
·. or pay thereof on either side."

This, School was established by Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti, Korba, a
- 1 - ------ - - " ---~- - - ·- • -- ---·--- --· -- -- - - - \ -

body registered under the M.P. Non-Trading Corporation Act, 1962.
The Society under its bye-laws has a Foundation Committee which is
<Ii its Governing Body and an Executive Committee, i.e. Managing Com~
mittee. On June 23, 1971 the Managing Committee dispensed with the
services of the appellant with immediate effect by giving him one
month's sillary in lieu of notice. The appellant made a representation
against this order to the Divisional Superintendent of Education who
by his letter dated June 24, 1971 directed the Secretary of the school to
H rescind the order of termination of the services of the appellant and to
-~_: _; i:
;

'l .
--~-
V.D. PANDE v. SIKSHA SAMITI[RAY, J.I 445

hand over charge of the school to the appellant otherwise the recogni-
A
tion of the School will be withdrawn. This letter was written on the
ground that the termination of the appellant was wrongful being in
breach of Regulation 79. However, the appellant was not re-instated
pursuant t.o the said letter. The appellant, therefore, moved a writ
petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. This
was registered,,as Miscellaneous Petition No. 358 of 1971. The writ i3
petition was heard by a Division Bench of the said High Court and it
was held that Regt&ation No. 71 as well as Regulation No. 79
framed-by the Board of Secondary Education under Section 28(2)(d)
of Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Adhiniyam, 1955 have no statutory
force following the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Ram Pal
Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., [1970] 1SCC75 and as such
the termination of service of the appellant in violation of the proce-
c
dure prescribed in Regulation No. 71 and 79 of the said Regulations
would not render the impugned order null and void. It could at best be
a wrongful dismissal from service by the master and the appellant's
remedy is only by an action for damages he might have sustained in
consequence of the breach of the master and servant contract. It was D
also held that the School in question was run l:iy a private body and as
such no writ of mandamus could be issued. The Court further held that
an order cannot be made against the society compelling the· re-instate-
ment of the appellant as it is in the realm of contractual rights and
obligations. The writ petition was thus dismissed. Against this judg-
ment and order the instant appeal has been filed on special leave E
before this Court. ·

In order to effectively consider the question whether these Regu-
lations have got statutory force or not it is necessary to set out
hereinbelow the relevant Regulations:
F
"Regulation 61: No Educational Institution shall be re-
cognised, or continued to be recognised unless it complies
with the following requirements, namely:

(1) That the Educational Institution shall comply with the
conditions laid down in Chapter XII of these Regulations. G
(2) that there shall be a Managing Committee as defined
under the· Adhiniyam consisting of not more than 10
members of which two shall be the Head of the Institution
and a nominee of the Educational Officer concerned and
that the Governing Body of Managing Committee shall be
registered under the Societies Registration Act. H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) Supp. 3 S.C.R.
'
Regulation 71: All Principal, Head Masters, Lecturers,
A
and Teachers, except those appointed temporarily for a
period of less than one year, shall be on probation !or a
term of one year which may be extended to two years. If
after two years service any incumbent is continued in his
appointment, he shall, unless the appointing authority, for
reasons to be recorded in the writing, otherwise directs, be
deemed· to have been confirmed in that appointment. On
being confirmed the incumbent shall sign a contract of
service in the form one or two (appended to these Regula-
tions) as the case may be, as soon as practicable.

Regulation 79 (1): The Managing Committee shall not
terminate the services and reduce the pay of Principal or
Head Master appointed on written contract without first
obtaining Director's sanction for holding a.full enquiry into
the charges against him. The incumbent shall be given in
writing a statement of the charges against him, and also be
D .afforded an opportunity of defending himself. His previous
services and character with reference to this incidental file
and Service book shall also be taken into consideration
before arriving at a decision.

(2) No decision as to termination of service or reduction of
E a Principal or a Head Master shall be valid, unless passed· at
Special Meeting by a majority of two-thirds of members of
the Managing Committee. No such resolution shall be
valid, if passed at an adjourned meeting.

(3) The Principal or Head Master have a right of appeal to
the Director against decision of the Managing Committee.·
The decision of the Director shall be final."

These Regulations were framed under the provision of Section
28(2)(d) of the said Act which reads as follows:

"Sec. 28-Powers of Board to make Regulations-

(1) The Board may make Regulations for the purpose of
carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing power, the Board may make Regulations
V.D. PANDE v. S!KSHA SAMITI. IRAY, J.} . 447 ' ~·

providing for all or any of the following matters, namely:
' A
(d) The conditions of recognition of institutions for the
purposes of admission to the privileges of the Board and
framing of a Sch.ool Code to ensure a minimum standard of
efficient and uniform management of such schools."
B
It thus appears that Section 28(2)( d) confers power on the Board
to make Regulations regarding the conditions of the Institutions as
well as for framing of "School Code" to ensure a minimum standard of
efficient and uniform management of such schools. Regulation 71
clearly provides that Principals, Head Masters, Lecturers and Teachers
when appointed shall be appointed on probation for a period of one
year which may be extended to two years. It also provides that after
c
two years of service if any incumbent is continued in his appointment
he shall be deemed to have been confirmed to that appointment unless
the Appointing Authority for reasons recorded in writing otherwise
directs.
D
In this case the appellant has been appointed on probation as
Principal with effect from July 3, 1968 and as he was allowed to
continue for more than two years he shall be deemed to have been
confirmed in the post of Principal of the said School. The Managing
Committee of the School by its letter dated June 23, 1971 terminated
the services of the appellant after giving him one month's salary in lieu E
of notice without serving on him any charges against him, without
holding any enquiry and also without giving him any opportunity of
hearing before making the order terminating his service as required
under the provision of Regulation 79(1) of the said Regulations. The
impugned resolution was also not passed at a special meeting by a
majority of 2/3rd of the members of the Managing Committee as pro- F
vided in clause (2) of the said Regulation 79. The High Court though
found that there is a violaiion of the provisions of Regulation 71 and 79
yet as these Regulations have got no statutory force the appellant
could not get the relief of a declaration that the order of termination of
his service was illegal and invalid and also could not get an order for
his re-instatement in service as his appointment was in the realm of a G
contract of master and servant and his only remedy was an action for
wrongful termination from service.

Two questions therefore, fall for consideration namely whether
the Regulations framed pursuant to a Statute can be said to have a
statutory force the breach of which will entitle the aggrieved employee H

t
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A to get a declaration that the impugned order was invalid and illegal and
the employee should be allowed to continue in ·service or should be
re-instated in service. The High Court has relied upon the decision of
this Court in Dr. Ram Pal Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.,
(supra) as well as Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai, [1971] 2
B SCC 192. In the case of Dr. Ram Pal Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan
·and Ors., the appointment of three respondents namely Dr. D.G.
Ojha, Dr. P.D. Mathur and Dr. Rishi as Principal of Sr. Patel Medical
College, Bikaner, Rabindra Nath Tagore Medical College, Udaipur
and Medical College, Jodhpur respectively was challenged on the
ground that though they fulfilled the qualifications prescribed by Rule
30(4) of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules
C. 1962 they had not the requisite experience as provided in Ordinance
No. 65 framed under the University of Rajasthan Act of 1946 and as
such their appointments were not valid and legal. The Syndicate of the
Rajasthan University constituted under Section 21 of the Act is
empowered under SecJion 29 read with Section 30 to make ordinances,
D consistent with the Act and statutes, to provide [or the matters listed in
Section 29. These matters hlclude in Clause VI "emoluments and con-
ditions of service of University teachers". The Syndicate made the
ordinances pursuant to the provisions of this Section. It was held that:

"The field of operation of this Ordinance appears to us to
· be restricted to the question of affiliation of the colleges
E concerned with the Rajasthan University. It is note-worthy
that the University has not thought fit to object to these
appointments. If there is any violation of a provision of this
Ordinance then that may appropriately be taken into
account by the Rajasthan University for the purpose of
withdrawing ot refusing to continue affiliation of the
F
colleges in question. But clearly that would not render the
impugned appointments null and void a fortiorari that can
not confer any right on Dr. Ram Pal Chaturvedi to
approach the High Court by means of petition for writ of
quo-warranto to challenge the appointments -of these three
persons.''
G
This decision is not an authority for the proposition that Regula-
tions framed pursuant to a Statute do not have a statutory force. High
Court was in error in holding otherwise. This question is, however,
concluded in favour of the appellant by a decision of this Court
rendered by a 3-Judge Bench.
V.D. PANDE v. SIKSHA SAMIT! [RAY, J.] 449

The question whether a regulation framed under power confer-
A
red by the provisions of a Statute has got statutory power and whether
an order made in breach of the said Regulation will be rendered illegal
and invalid, came up for consideration before the Constitution Bench
in the case of Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh
Raghuvanshi andAnr., [1975] 3 SCR 619. In this case it was held that:
B
"There is no substantial difference between a rule and a
regulation inasmuch as both are subordinate legislation
under powers conferred by the statute. A regulation
framed under a statute applies uniform treatment to every
one or to all members of some group or class. The Oil and
Natural Gas Commission, the Life Insurance Corporation
and Oil and Natural Gas Commissionaire all req_uired by the
c
statute to frame regulations inter alia for the purpose of the
duties and conduct and conditions of service of officers and
other employees. These regulations impose obligation on
the statutory authorities. The statutory authorities cannot
deviate from the conditions of service. Any deviation will
be enforced by legal sanction of declaration by courts to
invalidate actions in violations of rules and regulations.
The existence of rules and regulations under statute is to
ensure regular conduct with a distinctive attitude to ti!at
conduct as a standard. The statutory regulations in the
cases under consideration give the employee a statutory E
status and impose restriction on the employer and the
employee with no option to vary the conditions."

There is therefore, no escape from the conclusion that regula-
tions have force of law. The order of the High Court must therefore,
be reversed on this point unhesitatingly.

In Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai the respondent
who was an employee of the Indian Airlines Corporation was found
guilty of certain charges and dismissed from service after an enquiry
held in breach of the procedure laid down by the Regulations made by
the appellant under Section 45 of the Air Corporation Act, 1953. A
suit was filed by the respondent challenging the order of termination.
It was decreed by the Trial Court holding that the dismissal was illegal
and granted a declaration that he be continued to remain in service.
The Appellate Court as well as the High Court confirmed the decree.
On appeal this Court held that the relationship between the appellant,
Indian Airlines Corporation and the respondent would in such cases be
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
_,.
A contractual i.e. as between a master and servant and the termination
of that relationship would not entitle the servant to a declaration that
his employment had not been validly determined. The termination
though wrongful in breach of the terms and conditions which governed -·
the relationship between the Corporation and the respondent yet it did
not fall under any of the three well recognised exceptions and there-
B fore the respondent was only entitled to damages and not to a declara-
tion that this dismissal was null and void. The respondent has sought
support from this decision. We are afraid the contention is wholly
untenable. The decision in Indian Airlines' case has in terms been
,.i
U-:-·-·

declared to be no longer good law and has in terms been overruled in
Sukhdev Singh's case (1975) 3 SCR 619 by the Constitution Bench.
C Says Ray, C.J. speaking for the Court:

"In the Indian Airlines case this Court said that there being
no obligation or restriction in the Act or the rules subject to
which only the power to terminate the employment could
be exercised the employee could. not contend that he was
D entitled to a declaration that the termination of his employ-
ment was null and void. In the Indian Airlines Corporation
case reliance was placed upon the decision of Kruse v
Johnson, [1898] 2 Q.B. 91 for the view that not all by-laws
- I have the force of law. This Court regarded regulation as
the same thing as by-laws. In Kruse v. Johnson the Court
was simply describing the effect that the county by-laws
have own the public. The observations of the Court in Kruse
v. Johnson, that the by-law "has the force of law within the
sphere of its legitimate operation" are not qualified by the
words that it is so "only when affecting the public or some
section of the public ...... ordering something to be done
or not to be done and accompanied by some sanction or
penalty for its non-observance." In this view a regulation is
not an agreement or contract but a law binding the corpora-
tion, its officers, servants and the members of the public
who come within the sphere of its operations. The doctrine
of-ultra vires as applied to statutes, rules and orders should
G equally apply to the regulations and any other subordinate
legislation. The regulations made under power conferred
by the statute are subordinate legislation and have the force
and effect, if validity made, as the Act passed by the com-
petent legislature. - -
/\,
In U.P. Warehousing Corporation and Indian Air-
V.D. PANDE v. SIKSHA SAMIT! [RAY, J.) 451

lines Corporation case the terms of the regulations were
A
treated as terms and conditions of relationship between the
Corporation and its employees. That does not lead to the
conclusion that they are of the same nature and quality as
the terms and conditions laid down in the contract of
employment. Those terms 'and conditions not being con-
tractual are imposed by one kind of subordinate legislation, B
viz. regulations made in exercise of the power conferred by
the statute which constituted that Corporation. Terms of
the regulations are not terms of contract. In the lndia"n
Airlines Corporation case under section 45 of the Air
Corporations Act, 1953, the Corporation had the pC'wer to
make regulations not inconsistent with the Act and the
rules made by the Central Government thereunder. The c
Corporation had no power to alter or modify or rescind
the provisions of t!Jese regulations at its discretion which it
could do in respect of the terms of contract that it may wish
lo enter with its employees independent of these regula-
tions. So far as the terms of the regulations are concerned, D
the actions of the Corporation are controlled by the
Central Government. The decisions of this Court in U.P.
Warehousing Corporation and Indian Airlines Corporation
are in direct conflict with decision of this Court in
Naraindas Barot's case which was decided by the Constitu-
tion Bench." E

Under the circumstances the plea of the respondents is meritless.

In Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh v. A.L. Pande and Anr., [1965] 2
SCR 713 a question arose whether the provisions of ordinance 20
otherwise called the College Code framed by the University of Saugar F
under Section 32 and Section 6(6) of the University of Saugar Act,
1946 embodying the terms and conditions of teachers of the College
affiliated to the University, have the force oflaw. It was held that:

"The provisions of Ordinance 20 i.e. the "College Code"
have got statutory force. It confers legal rights on the G
teachers on the affiliated colleges and it is not a correct
proposition to say that the "College Code" merely regu-
lates the legal relationship between the affiliated colleges
and the University alorie" W,e do not agree with tile High
Court that the provisions of the" "College Code" constitute
power of management" On the contrary we are of the view H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

that the provisions of the "College Code" relating to the pay
A
scale of teachers and their security of tenure properly fall
within the statutory power of affiliation granted to the
University Pnder the Act. It is true that Clause 7 of the
Ordinance. provides that all teachers of aifiliated colleges
shall be appointed on a written contract in the form pre-
B scribed in Sch. A but that does not mean that teachers have
merely a contractual remedy against the Governing Body
of the College. On the other hand, we are of opinion that
the provisions of Clause 8 of the Ordinance relating to
security of the tenure of teachers are part and parcel of the
teachers' service conditions and, as we have already
pointed out, the provisions of the "College Code" in this
c regard are validly made by the University in exercise of the
statutory power and have, therefore, the force and effect of
law. It follows, therefore, that the "College Code" creates
legal rights in favour of teachers of affiliated colleges and
the view taken by the High Court is erroneous."
tl
In the case of Manmohan Singh Jaitla v. Commissioner, U. T. of
Chandigarh and Ors., (1984] (Supp) SCC 540 the appellant was
appointed as Head Master of an aided School. He was later confirmed
by the competent authority. A charge-sheet was served on the appel-
lant and disciplinary enquiry was held against him under section 3 of
E the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act. The enquiry was
however, withdrawn later on and his seven years' service was
terminated by invoking the service agreement on ground that his
service was no more required by the School. This order was challenged
by a writ petition before the High Court which rejected the same in
limine but by a speaking order observing that as the School cannot be
F said to be 'other authority' under Article 12, it was not amenable to
the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court negatived
the said finding of the High Court and held as follows:

"The matter can be viewed from a slightly different angle
as well. After the decision of the Constitution .Bench of this
Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, [1981] 1
SC 722 the aided school receiving 95% of expenses by way
of grant from the public exchequer and whose employees
have received the statutory protection under the 1969 Act
and who is subject to the regulations made by the :Educa-
tion Department of the Union Territory of Chandigarh as
also the appointment of Headmaster. to be valid must be
V.D. PANDE v. SIKSHA SAMITI [RAY, J.] 453

approved by the Director of Public In.structions, would cer-
A
tainly be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court. The High Court unfortunately, did not even refer to
the decision of the Constitution Bench in Ajay Rasia, case
rendered on November 13, 1980 while disposing of the writ
petition in 1983. In Ajay Rasia case, Bhagwati, J. speaking
for the Constitution Bench inter alia observed (SCC p. 737, B
para 9) that "where the financial assistance of the State is
so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the
Corporation, it would afford some indication of the Corpo-
ration being impregnated with governmental character".
Add to this "the existence of deep and pervasive State
control may afford an indication t)lat the corporation is a
State agency or instrumentality". Substituting the words c
'public trust' in place of the 'corporation' and the reasons
will mutatis mutandis apply to the School. Therefore, also
the High Court was in error in holding that the third
respondent-School was not amenable to the writ jurisdic-
tion of the High Court." D

In Indra Pal Gupta v. Managing Committee, Model Inter College
Thora, [1984] 3 SCC 384 the appellant was appointed on probation for
one year as Principal of Model Inter College, Thora, District
Bullandshahr in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921) and the E
Regulations made thereunder. The period of probation was however,
extended by the Managing Committee of the said Model Inter College
for a further period of one year. On April 27, 1969 the Managing
Committee adopted a resolution to terminate the services of the appel-
lant in consideration of the report of the Manager of the College to the
effect that due to his unsatisfactory services, it would not be in the F
interest of the Institution to permit him to continue as probationer any
longer. The service of the appellant was thus terminated without com-
plying with the mandatory procedure laid down in Regulations.35 to 38
which provided for forming a sub-committee to enquire into the alle-
gations against the Principal and to frame ciefinite charges against the
Principal and to give him opportunity of hearing. It was held that the G
order of termination made in breach of the provisions of the said
Regulations which were made in pursuance of the provisions of the
said Act, is illegal and invalid and as such the same was quashed. The
appellant was further declared to be in service of the College.
_, On a conspectus of these decisions the irresistible conclusion !:
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A follows that the impugned order of termination of the appellant from
the post of Principal of the Higher Secondary Schqol in breach of tho
Regulation 79 framed under the said Act is illegal and as such the same
is liable to be quashed ns the Regulations have got statutory force. The
appellant is liable to be re·Jnstated Jn the service as Principal of the
B said College. We also hold that the Higher Secondary School In ques·
tion though run by a private trust receives 100% grant from the
Government as in evident from the affidavit sworn on behalf of the
appellant and .as such it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction for viola·
tion of the provisions of the said Regulations in passing the impugned
order of termination of service of the appellant. We therefore, set
aside the order passed by the High Court which, in our opinion, is
C:: unsustainable and direct the respondents to re-instate the appellant in
the service of the said College. Considering the facts and cir-
cumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the ends of justice
would be mot by directln11 the respondent& to pay to the appellant a
sum equnl to 50% of the salaries and allowances from tho date of
II> termination till his re-Instatement in service as it appears that the
appellant was not in employment during this period. The appeal ia,
therefore, allowed with costs.
R.S.S. Appeol allowed.

I

'...•