A.P. Sen J.-

This is a petition by a Teacher of a private educational institution, seeking to enforce Chapter XII of the Board of Secondary Educa­tion, Madhya Pradesh Regulations 1965, against the Society which runs the School where he was employed. The petitioner seeks a declaration that he became a permanent employee of the Society by virtue of Regulation 71 and that his termination of service was in breach of Regulation 79 and, therefore, illegal, void and inoperative and prays for a consequential writ of Mandamus directing the Society to withdraw the order of termination and to re-instate him in service.

2. Shortly stated, the facts are these. Vidyut Grih Siksha Samity, Korba, a body registered under the M. P. Non-trading Corporation Act, 1962, runs Vidyut Grih Higher Secondary School at Korba, which was previously a high school. The Society under its bye-laws has a Foundation Committee which is its Governing body, and an Executive Committee, i.e., its Managing Committee.

3. On 31-7-1968, the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Com­mittee as Head Master of the High School on probation for a period of one year, on a pay-scale of Rs.250-10-290-15-350-EB 20-450, w. e. f. 3-7-1968. Meanwhile the High School became a Higher Secondary School. So, on 1-9-1969, the Managing Committee appointed him as Principal temporarily on a pay-scale of Rs.275-25-300-15-405-EB-20-550 25-700, w. e. f. 3-7-1968. Incidentally both the orders of appointment were subject to the following condition-

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

The 2nd Order, i.e. the one appointing the petitioner as Principal further provided-

"The appointment can be terminated on one month's notice or pay thereof on either side." On 23-6-1971, the Managing Committee dispensed with the petitioner's services with immediate effect by giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice. Being aggrieved, the petitioner represented to the Divisional Superintendent of Education who by his Memo dated 24-6-1971 threatened the Society with withdrawal of recognition of the school on the ground that the termination of the petitioner was wrongful being in breach of Regulation 79. But that had no effect and consequently, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition.

4. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to the declaration sought and to the consequential writ of Mandamus, on three grounds-

(1) The termination of service is not by a Managing Committee, duly constituted under Regulation 61 (m). Alternatively, if the Executive Com­mittee of the Society could be regarded as a Managing Committee, the meeting at which the resolution was passed, was not validly called because firstly, there was no nominee of the Divisional Superintendent of Education and secondly, the petitioner, who was a member, was not served with a notice.

(2) The service conditions of the petitioner were governed by Chap­ter XII of the Regulations and, under Regulation 71, he was a confirmed employee

(3) Consequently, the termination of his service was invalid being in breach of the protection conferred by Regulation 79.

There is, in our opinion, no force in the contentions.

5. The Regulations were framed under section 28 (2) (d) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965, which reads as follows:

"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 particulars and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Board may make Regulations providing for all or any of the following matters, namely:-

(d) the conditions of recognition of institutions for the purposes of admission to the privileges of the Board and framing of a School Code to ensure a minimum standard of efficient and uniform management of such Schools."

Admittedly, there is no provision in the Act which authorises the Board to frame any regulations for regulating the conditions of service of teachers of private educational institutions. However, the Board purported to fare certain regulations on the subject, i. e., those contained in Chapter XII there­of. Regulations 61 (1) and (m), 71 and 79, with which we are concerned, read as follows:

"61. No Educational Institution shall be recognized, or continue to be recognized, unless it complies with the following requirements, namely:-

(1) that the educational institution shall comply with the editions laid down in Chapter XII of these Regulations;

(m) 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 or Managing Committee shall be registered under the Societies Registration Act;

71. All Principals, Headmasters, Lecturers, and teachers, except those appointed tem­porarily for a period of less than one year, shall be on probation for 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 writing, otherwise directs, be deemed to have been confirmed is that appointment. On confirmation the incumbent shall sign a contract of service in the Forms I or II (appended to these Regulations) as the case may be, as soon as practicable.

79. (1) The Managing Committee shall not terminate the services or reduce the pay of Principal or Headmaster 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 afforded an opportunity of defending himself. His previous services and character with reference to his confidential file and service book shall also be taken into consideration before arriving at a decision.

(2) No decision as to termination of services or reduction of a Principal or Headmaster shall be valid, unless passed at special meeting by a majority of two-thirds of its members of the Managing Committee. No such resolution shall be valid, if passed at an adjourned meeting.

(3) The Principal or Headmaster shall have a right of appeal to the Director a'-taints the decision of the Managing Committee. The decision of the Director shall be final."

6. In our judgment, these Regulations have no statutory force In Dr. Ram Pal Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with Ordinance No. 65 framed by the Rajasthan 1970 (1) SCC 75, University under a like provision contained in the University of Rajputana Act, 1946, observed as follows:-

''...The Syndicate of this University constituted under section 21 of the Act is empowered under section 29 read with section 30 to make ordinance, consistent with the Act and statutes, to provide for the matters listed in section 29. These matters include in clause VI 'emolu­ments and conditions of service of University teachers'. But on this basis alone it is not easy for us to hold that Ordinance No. 65 is a provision under an Act, regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to Rajasthan Medical Service, as contemplated by Article 309 of the Constitution. Shri Gokhale referred us to entry 41 in List II of 7th Schedule of 1he Constitution which deals with the subject, interlaid, of 'State Public Services' and submitted that the Act fell within this entry and therefore came within the purview of Article 309. We are not impressed by this submission. In our opinion, on a consideration of the pith and substance of the Act and on a comparison of the language used in the entries Nos. 11 and 49 of List II, the field of legislation of the Act more appropriately falls under entry No. 11 which deals with the subject of education including University'. The appoint­ments of Dr. Ojha, Dr Mathur and Dr. Geisha thus seem to us to be fully justified by the Collegiate Branch Rules and their appointments cannot be held to be invalid by reason merely of non compliance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 63 in regard to the condition of teach­ing experience. The field of ration of this Ordinance appears to us to be restricted to the question of affiliation of the colleges concerned with the Rajasthan University. It is note­worthy 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 or refusing to continue affiliation of the colleges in question. But clearly that would not render the impugned appointments null and void a fortiori that cannot confer any right on Dr. Ram Pal Chaturvedi to approach the High Court by means of petition for writ of quo warrantor to challenge the appointments of these three persons..."

7. T he correctness of the decision relied upon in Krishna Rao Bire v. Guru Singh Sabha and others Miscellaneous Petition No 257 of 1971 decided on 25th October 1971, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has taken a contrary view, is open to question. There is no need to refer the matter to a larger Bench as the view taken by the Division Bench being in conflict of their Lordships' decision in Dr. Ram Pal Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan and others (supra), is not good law. Besides, the Division Bench was, in our view, wrong in relying upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh v. A.L. Pande and another 1970 M P L J 983 = (1965) 2 S C B 713, which turned on the provisions of the University of Sager Act, 19-16, which permitted by sec­tion 32 (h) of the making of an Ordinance for regulating the conditions of service of University teachers. Ordinance No. 20 made by the Sager Univer­sity had, therefore, statutory force. That is not so under section 28 (2) (d) of the Act and, therefore, the Regulations contained in Chapter XII of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh Regulations, 1965 and in particular, Regulations Nos. 71 and 79, have no statutory force and cannot be given the status of Regulations framed under the Act.

8. On the merits, the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. It is well settled both on authority and principle that in case of a wrongful dismissal, the remedy of the servant is by an action for damages he may have sustained in consequence of the breach of the master's contract to employ him but he has no right to any reinstatement. See: New Bhopal Textiles Limited Bhopal v. Ramdutt Kanhaiyalal 1961 M P L J 229. In Indian Airlines Corporation v. Sukhdeo Rai†. 1971 (2) SCC 192, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have stated as follows:

"...There were only three well recognised exceptions to the general rule under the law of master and servant where such a declaration would be issued, namely: (1) case of public-servants falling under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, (2) cases falling under the influx-trial law, and (3) cases where acts of statutory bodies are in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by a statute...."

The present case does not fall under any one of the said three exceptions. To grant the declaration sought and the writ of mandamus prayed for would be tantamount to specifically enforce the contract of service. The decision in K. N. Mishra v. Vice-Chancellor, Jiwaji University, Gwalior and others Miscellaneous Petition 476 of 19S7 decided on the 23rd April 1970, is distin­guishable on facts. There, the termination of service was in breach of a statutory restriction.

9. Besides, the petition must fail on another ground. Admittedly, the school is an educational institution run by a private body. That being so, no writ of mandamus can be issued. There is no question of making an order requiring any specific act to be done or performed by any person holding a public office. There is also to question of compelling the performance of any public duty. Nor can we make an order against the Society compelling the reinstatement of the petitioner which is a matter in the realm of contractual rights and obligations. The remedy of the petitioner, if any, lies by way of a suit.

10. On the view we have taken, we do not think it proper to express any opinion on the other questions raised.

11. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs.100/. The outstanding security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner.

Petition dismissed.