( 1 ) ARE the services of a teacher liable to be terminated at the pleasure of the institution which has employed him or whether such a teacher is entitled to any protection under sec. 36 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the central issue raised in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (it has been styled to be a petition under Articles 226 and 227 but inasmuch as it is directed against an order of a Tribunal it in fact falls within the four corners of Article 227 only) by a teacher whose services have been terminated otherwise than by way of a penal action for misconduct.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was engaged as a permanent teacher in 1970 by respondent No. 1 Society which is running a High School at Gandhinagar known as St. Xaviers High School. The respondent institution had served a notice Annexure A dated February 28 1975 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his services should not be terminated The notice in question was in the following terms :i am to inform you that the Managing Committee of The Ahmedabad Jesuit Schools Society proposes to terminate your services by one months notice with effect from 31st March 1975 You are hereby informed that if you have to say anything against the proposed action you may send your explanation and/or representation within fifteen days of the receipt of this notice. Otherwise the managing Committee will presume that you have nothing to say against the proposed action. You are further informed that the Managing Committee after considering your representations any and after hearing you if you so desire will take a suitable decision. The Managing Committee has also decided to pay six months compensation if it decides to terminate your services. The petitioner by his reply Annexure B dated March 14 1975 called the attention of the respondent institution to the fact that the proposed action was in clear violation of sec. 36 (1) (a) of the Act. He further informed the respondent that he was not in a position to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated inasmuch as in the show cause notice itself no ground for the proposed action was disclosed In the wake of this correspondence the respondent institution terminated the services of the petitioner by order at Annexure C dated March 24 1975 with effect from March 31 1975 on payment of six months salary as compensation. He was inter alia informed that the Managing Comatose had considered his reply to the show cause notice but had formed the Opinion that the petitioner had failed to show any cause for desisting from the proposed action. The petitioner moved the Tribunal constituted under the Act by way of an application which was registered as Application No. 82/75 by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal Ahmedabad. The Tribunal was moved under secs. 38 and 39 of the Act. The Tribunal after taking into account the affidavits filed by the parties dismissed the application by the impugned order at Annexure F dated August 8 1975 on taking the view that inasmuch as the termination was effected alter serving a show cause notice there was sufficient compliance with the statutory provision embodied in sec. 36 (1) (a) of the Act. The Tribunal negatived the contention that the petitioner had not been afforded reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action inasmuch as the respondent institution had not assigned any reasons for terminating the services of the petitioner and that in the absence of such reasons the petitioner was not in a position to effectively show cause against the proposed action. The petitioner has thereupon invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present petition.

( 3 ) SEC. 36 (1) which has given rise to serious controversy in the present matter requires to bequoted in order to appreciate the nature and content of the controversy. It reads as under :36 (1) No person who is appointed as a