( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed for a declaration declaring the action of the first respondent i. e. Chairman, Evangelical Trust Association of South India terminating the services of the petitioner as Principal of Timpany High School by his order dated 10-8-1993 as illegal, arbitrary etc.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a M. A. B. Ed, and has an experience of 23 years in teaching. Out of 23 years of teaching experience, she was Principal for 18 years. She worked for 6 1/2 years and 11 1/2 years respectively at Timpany High School and Assembly of God Church School, asansol, West Bengal. She was appointed as Principal of Timpany High School, visakhapatnam managed by Timpany Christian Educational Trust by orders dated 13-1-1987 pursuant to which she took charge on 5-2-1987. Her Services were confirmed in August, 1987. On 11-8-1993 a notice was published in Telugu daily Eeenadu, Visakhapatnam Edition stating that she ceased to be the principal of Timpany High School with effect from 10-8-1993. The petitioner says that on account of strained relations between the first respondent and the second respondent her services were terminated. Challenging the order of termination, the present writ petition is filed.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions: (1) that the petitioner is a confirmed employee and therefore, her services cannot be terminated without following the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. (2) the condition imposed while confirming her services as Principal by the letter dated 26-9-1987 stating that her services if found unsatisfactory, may be terminated by giving three months notice in writing or three months salary in lieu of notice, is arbitrary, illegal and opposed to public policy as held by the Supreme Court in Central inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Brojo Nath W. B. S. E. Board vs. Desk Bandu Gosh O. P. Bhandari vs. Indian Tourism Development corporation Ltd. and Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D. T. C. Mazdoor congress (3) The respondent Institution is discharging public duties and therefore, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. ( Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh) (4) The allegation that the petitioner is drawing Rs. 8,000/- as salary and is also entitled for 10% of profits is not true and therefore, she is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages from the date of termination of her services.

( 4 ) WHILE the counsel appearing for the respondent raised the following contentions: (1) that the Andhra Pradesh Education Act is not applicable to the respondent-Institution as the Institution was established under Delhi school Education Act, 1973 under which a recognised school is defined under Section 2 (t) as School recognised by the Appropriate Authority. Therefore, the appropriate authority in the case of the respondent institution is the State Government and in the absence of recognition by the State Government under the A. P. Education Act, 1982, Section 79 of the Act is not applicable. Therefore, it is open to the respondent to terminate the service in accordance with the contract of employment. (2) Even if the condition in the order confirming the petitioner as Principal empowering the respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner by giving three months notice in the event of unsatisfactory service of the petitioner is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, and, Section -23 of the Contract Act, the remedy available to the petitioner is by way of a regular suit and this Court in exercise of the power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the impugned order. (3) that under Section 14 (l) (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the contract of employment cannot be enforced by an order against an employer and therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is only to sue for damages. He relied