ORDER:- The petitioners challenge various orders passed by the educational authorities on the ground that the impugned orders are arbitrary and discretionary.

2. Shortly stated the facts are that the petitioners are the trustees of the "New Education High School Trust, Petlad", a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The trust is conducting a secondary school for girls in town of Petlad namely "New Education Girls' High School". One Mrs. S.P. Kothari was appointed as a Head-mistress of the said school on and from June 12, 1966 for a period of one year on probation. The management of the School had made rules regarding the conditions of employment and service of teachers. The said rules divide the teachers in two categories, namely, permanent teachers and non-permanent teachers. Non-permanent teachers include temporary teachers and teachers on probation. Rule 11 of the Rules provides that service of non-permanent teachers may be terminated by the management at any time without assigning any reasons after giving one calender month's notice or notice pay in lieu of the notice period. On August 3, 1966 two students studying in Standard XI of the School were driven out of their class by the Head-Mistress on the ground that they had not put on required dress. The guardians of the students intended to offer an explanation but the Head-mistress gave an insolent reply to them. On account of this the students of Standards X and XI of the School went on strike. On August 4, 1966, the management intervened and persuaded the students to attend their classes. The Head-mistress refused to take their classes, unless and until the students apologised to her. The management received a complaint that one of the students was given a beating by the Head-Mistress. The management called for an explanation from the Head-Mistress but she did not give any satisfactory explanation. The management also noticed that the tuition given by the Head-Mistress in English was not satisfactory and she had taken casual leave of 6½ days during the short period of her service. A meeting of the trustees of the trust was called on August 7, 1966, whereat the Head-Mistress was also requested to remain present to give an explanation of her defaults. At the said meeting the trustees sought an explanation from the Head-Mistress for the aforesaid defects and misconduct. The Head-Mistress gave her explanation on all counts but the trustees found the same to be unsatisfactory. Thereafter a meeting of the trustees of the trust was held on August 21, 1966 and it was unanimously resolved to discharge the Head-Mistress by serving a legal notice of one month. The Head-Mistress had not served the school for a full term, and, therefore, no confidential report was maintained by the management. The Head-Mistress made an application to the Director of Education, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, who is respondent No.2 in the present petition. On 1st September, 1966, the Director of Education ordered the petitioners after hearing them that the vacant post of the Head-Mistress should not be filled up till other orders were made. On September 22, 1966, the Director of Education passed an order that the management should either pay to Mrs. Kothari compensation equal to the salary of the remaining part of one year or reinstate her in service and allow her to serve the period of probation. On October 1, 1966 the Educational Inspector, District Kaira, Nadiad, respondent No.3 herein, wrote a letter to the petitioners informing the petitioners that as per instructions from the Director of Education, Mrs. Kothari could not be discharged from service as per the provisions of the Grant-In-Aid Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and the Institution should continue her till probation period or she be paid for the remaining period. The petitioners made representations to the authorities to reconsider the aforesaid order. The Inspector of Education informed the petitioners b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document