Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This is a case of quashing the impugned order of termination passed without prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Learned Counsel appearing for the Committee of Management cited a Judgment to establish that no writ lies as against the Committee of Management. He cited the Judgment of Aley Ahmad Abidi v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and others, AIR 1977 All 539 (FB). According to us the following portion of the Judgment is relevant for due consideration :

“The Committee of Management of an Intermediate College is not a statutory body. Nevertheless, a Writ Petition filed against it is maintainable if such petition is for enforcement of performance of any legal obligations or duties imposed on such committee by a statute.”

2. To elaborate his argument he contended that there is no statutory obligation or duty imposed on the Committee of Management for the purpose of following the Government Order dated 18.7.2006 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition).

3. We are not agreeable with him since the approval from the Vice chancellor is part and parcel of sub-clause (6) of Section 50 of the U.P. State Universities Act, reads as under :

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-section, the State Government may, in order to implement any decision taken by it on the basis of any suggestion or recommendation of the University Grants Commission or the State or national education policy with regard to the qualifications of the teachers, require the Executive Council to make new or additional Statutes or amend or repeal the Statutes referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A) within a specified time and if the Executive Council fails to comply with such requirement, the State Government may make new or additional Statutes or amend or repeal the Statutes referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A).

4. The learned Counsel for the University contended before this Court that they have issued several letters by the pen of the Registrar to take action against the Committee of Management in case the mandate is not followed.

5. The case of the petitioners is that they have been appointed as per relevant provisions of the Government Order dated 9.5.2005 followed by Government Order dated 26.4.2004. By a further Government Order dated 11.3.2005 it issued directions for compliance of the Government Order dated 9.5.2005 for the Degree Colleges running under self financing scheme. Since the salary was not paid to the petitioners for the months of April, May and June 2005 the matter was agitated by the petitioners before the authorities including Regional Higher Officer and Registrar of the University on behalf of the Vice Chancellor who on their turn directed the Manager of the College to make due payment to the teachers. However, vide impugned order dated 30.6.2006, the services of the petitioners were terminated by the respondent No. 5. Vide letter dated 18.7.2006 the Registrar informed the Committee of Management of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor that the petitioners had been duly selected by a duly constituted committee and that no approval/sanction was taken from the Vice Chancellor in respect with their termination. It was further directed that the new advertisement so made be cancelled and the work be taken from the teachers appointed earlier and that in case no positive response was received from the Committee of Management by 31.7.2006 and the directions of the University were not complied with then action would be taken against the Committee of Management in accordance with law ceasing its affiliation and alternate arrangements would be made. The Committee of Management-respondent No. 5 vide its letter dated 2.8.2006 submitted the reasons mentioned therein that the Committee of Management would not be again forced to be asked to make payment of the salary. The petitioners being thus aggrieved filed this writ petition on the ground that the terminatio