The right of appeal to the Vice Chancellor against the order of dismissal was upheld by the court and found to be valid and within the delegated power of the Syndicate under S.190) of the old Act.

1. These three appeals disclose an acute and acrimonious controversy raging between the Management of a private college and its Principal. The suits out of which the Second Appeals arise, and the one which has given rise to the appeal, were all disposed of by a common judgment by the trial court. The appeals against two of them were dismissed and that has given rise to the Second Appeals. The appeal against the third suit was preferred to the District Court and transferred to this Court for disposal. S. A. No. 341 of 1973 arises out of O. S. No. 110 of 1970 which was treated as the main suit; the reference to the exhibits and to the ranks of parties in the judgment of the trial court was as in the said suit.

2. The St. Joseph's Training College for Women, Ernakulam, is the college concerned. It was founded, and is being run, by the Congregation of the Mothers of Carmel, composed of Roman Catholics, a minority based on religion, under Art.30(1) of the Constitution. Smt. Lilly Kurien (1st Respondent is 'all these appeals) was the Principal of the College since 1957. On 30-10-1969 there was some incident an outburst of temper, followed by assault or attempt at assault in the college between the Principal and one Sri. Rajaratnam, a Lecturer in the college, on deputation by the Government. The versions of Sri. Rajaratnam and of the Ist Respondent about the incident differed, as to the offensive and the innocent roles in regard to the incident, each trying to put the other in the wrong. An enquiry into the incident was directed by the Board of Management, and a Retired Principal of the Maharaja's College, Ernakulam (Sri. P. Narayana Menon) was appointed Enquiry Officer While he was about to start the proceedings, the Ist Respondent sent Ext, A-6 notice dated 19-11-1969 to the President of the Board of Management, alleging malafides against the Board and questioning the legality of the appointment of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry, the 1st Respondent not participating therein, and submitted his Report, finding the 1st Respondent guilty. Before any action followed pursuant to the Report, the 1st Respondent filed O.S. No. 819 of 1969, Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, on 18121969 (Ext. A-4 is a copy of the plaint) for a declaration that all. proceedings taken by the Board of Management for enquiry were illegal, and for an injunction restraining the Enquiry Officer from proceeding with the enquiry. By order on I. A. No. 6784 of 1969 filed with the plaint, an interim injunction was granted on 19121969 against the implementation of any decision that might be taken by the Management, till final orders are passed on the injunction petition. On 19121969 Ext- A-1 order was passed by the Management (communicated to the 1st Respondent on 211970) dismissing the 1st Respondent from service, but stating that the order will take effect only after the disposal of I. A. No. 6784 of 1970. The said petition was dismissed by Ext. A-2 order on 17-1-1970 with a direction that the order of interim injunction will be allowed to be in force for a period of two weeks from that date to enable the Ist Respondent to file an appeal before the Vice Chancellor, as provided by Ordinance 33 (4) of Chapter LVII of the Ordinances passed by the Syndicate under the provisions of the Kerala University Act 1957. The 1957 Act bad been replaced by the University Act of 1969 which came into force on 28 21969; and even by the time Ext. A 2 order was passed on 171 1970, the 1st Respondent had instituted an appeal to the Vice Chancellor on 911970 against the order of dismissal by the Management. She also filed an appeal to the Sub Court against Ext. A-2 order which was dismissed on 30-6-1970 (vide Ext. A-16). The suit itself O. S.819 of 1969 was dismissed as withdrawn without permission to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action by Ext. A-3 judgment dated 19 9 1972. It is represented by Counsel for the 1st Respondent that CRP.