JUDGMENT

Ramaswami, J.—

1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh dated February 28, 1963 dismissing the petition of the appellant for grant of a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The appellant was appointed as a lecturer in Sanskrit in the year 1955 in the S. B. R. College (Sheobhagwan Rameshwarlal Arts College), Bilaspur and he was confirmed in that post in the year 1957. The College is affiliated to the University of Saugar under the provisions of the University of Saugar Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the Act) and is managed by the Governing Body established under Clause 3 of the College Code which is an Ordinance made under the provisions of the Act. The College is maintained out of the funds of Sheobhagwan Rameshwarlal Charitable Trust Bilaspur and is aided by the State Government. On June 2, 1960 the Principal of the College served the appellant, by post, a charge sheet consisting of three charges and the appellant was asked to submit explanation within a week's time. The charges were as follows:-

(1) That you have deliberately based your representation dated 28th December 1959 on false facts and mis-statements and have committed acts of in-subordination amounting to mis-conduct by making counter-charges against the Governing Body.

(2) They you have not been taking active interest in the extra-curricular activities of the College and have failed to co-operate with the authorities as required by the conditions of service.

(3) That you have deliberately avoided to execute your service bond which every teacher of the institution is required to do. This non-fulfilment of the conditions of your appointment order No.FC/56-57, dated 1st July 1956 amounts to breach of the service rules of the college.

3. The appellant submitted explanation denying all the charges and requested the Governing Body to supply particulars on which the first charges was based. The allegation of the appellant is that he was not supplied with the required particulars and that the Governing Body terminated the services of the appellant with effect from July 1, 1960 without holding any enquiry.

4. The appellant made a representation to the Governing Body on July 5, 1960 requesting it to reconsider the whole matter. The Governing Body rejected this representation also. The appellant thereafter moved the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh for grant of a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Governing Body dated June 30, 1960 terminating the services of the appellant, and also for the grant of a writ of mandamus reinstating the appellant to his post as a confirmed lecturer of the College. The case of the appellant was that the Governing Body had made the order of discharge in violation of the provisions of Clause 8 (vi) (a) of the College Code and that the order of the Governing Body was, therefore ultra vires and illegal. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant on the ground that the conditions of service of the appellant were governed not by the College Code but by the contract made between the Governing Body and the appellant. The High Court also took the view that provision of the College Code were merly conditions prescribed for affiliation of colleges and no legal rights were created by the College Code ill favour of lecturers of the affiliated Colleges as against the Governing Body. In taking this view the High Court followed its previous decision in Vedraj Bhawanidas Dua Vs. Damoh Arts College, 1961 JLJ 120 in which is was held that the College Code being merely conditions prescribed for affiliating Colleges, the University may at its option enforce or relax those conditions and the only sanction for fulfilment of those conditions is disaffiliation. The High Court accordingly did not go into the question whether the Governing Body had violated the procedure prescribed in Clause 8 (vi) (a) bu