Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- The appellant, Smt. J. Tiwari, was appointed as the Head Mistress of the Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir, Kanpur (respondent 1 herein), which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. In 1949, the school was raised to the status of an Intermediate College, whereupon the appellant became its Principal. On December 21, 1951 the Working Committee of the Higher Secondary Section of the Society passed a resolution suspending the appellant. On January 18, 1952 a charge-sheet was served upon the appellant and on the very next day she filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, challenging her suspension as void and inoperative. In May 1957 the High Court of Allahabad withdrew that suit for trial to itself and thereupon the suit was numbered as 2 of 1957. By a judgment dated April 2, 1958 a learned single Judge of the High Court decreed the suit, holding that the Committee which passed the resolution of suspension was not properly constituted and therefore it had no jurisdiction to suspend the appellant. Both the parties filed appeals against that judgment but those appeals were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on April 17, 1962.

2. On May 24, 1958 the Executive Committee of the Society passed a resolution terminating the appellants services with retorspective effect from the date of suspension. On August 28, 1958 the appellant filed suit No. 42 of 1959 asking for a declaration that she continued in the service of respondent 1 and for setting aside the order terminating her services. The appellant claimed in her suit a decree in the sum of Rs. 37,657.40 by way of salary.

3. The suit was partly decreed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge, Kanpur, who upheld the appellants contention that the termination of her services was bad and ineffective. The learned Judge passed a decree in her favour in the sum of Rs. 15,250/- as arrears of pay for a period of three years from August 1, 1955 to July 31, 1958 with interest at 3% per annum and in a further sum of Rs. 465.51 as compensation in respect of her contribution towards the Provident Fund. Both the parties filed appeals against the judgment of the trial court. First Appeal No. 323 of 1961 was filed by the College while First Appeal No. 332 of 1961 was filed by the appellant. A Division Bench of the High Court on May 17, 1966 partly allowed the former appeal and dismissed the latter appeal wholly. The High Court has taken the view that though the appellants dismissal was wrongful, she was entitled to a decree for damages only and not to a declaration that she still continued to be in the service of respondent 1 and to a consequent order of reinstatement. The High Court upheld the money decree passed by the trial Court but it did so on the ground that the amount awarded by the trial court to the appellant by way of arrears of salary could justifiably be granted to her by way of damages. The High Court has granted to the appellant a certificate to appeal to this Court under Art. 132 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution.

4. We are unable to accept the contention strenuously advanced before us by the appellants learned counsel that respondent 1 is a public body or a statutory authority and therefore the appellant would be entitled to obtain a declaration that she continued to be in the service of respondent 1 since the order terminating her services has been found to be unlawful. The regulations of the University or the provisions of the Education Code framed by the State Government may be applicable to respondent 1 and if the provisions thereof are violated by respondent 1, the University may be entitled to disaffiliate the institution and the Government may perhaps be entitled to withdraw the educational grant payable to the institution. That does not however, mean that respondent 1 is a public or a statutory body. Respondent 1 is a private institution which is registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. It was established by one Na