ASTHANA, J. :- The basic question, common to all these cases referred to a Full Bench, is whether the relationship between the parties was that of pure master and servant unregulated or uncontrolled by any statutory provision and the servant was not entitled to the relief of injunction or declaration of nullity of removal from service and his remedy lay in a suit for damages for breach of contract.

Second Appeal No. 2973-of 1971

2. The first case referred is Second Appeal No. 2973 of 1971 which arises out of a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-appellants from interfering with the plaintiff-respondent in the discharge of his duty as Principal including functioning as such for all intent and purposes of the Vaish Degree College, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, later on known as Vyparik Varg Degree College, Shamli, hereinafter referred to as Vaish College.

3. Admittedly Sri Laxmi Narain, the plaintiff-respondent, was the permanent Principal of the Vaish College. He was appointed as such on 17-5-1964. His appointment was duly approved by the Vice Chancellor of Agra University to which the college was then affiliated. The plaintiff-respondent joined his post with effect from 1-7-1964. By a notice dated 24-10-1966 issued by the Management the plaintiff was directed not to discharge the functions and duties of the Principal of the College and not to obstruct the functioning of Sri K.K. Kaushik as acting Principal. By a resolution dated 27-10-1966 Sri K.K. Kaushik was appointed as the Principal, the Management having held that the plaintiff had abandoned the post. On 28-10-1966 the plaintiff instituted the suit for permanent injunction. While the suit was pending the Kanpur and Agra Meerut Universities Act 1965 (U.P. Act Kin of 1965), hereinafter called the Meerut Act, was enforced with effect from 21-11-1966 and the Vaish College, Shamli, stood affiliated to the Meerut University under the said Act. On 12-3-1967 the Management passed a formal resolution terminating the service's of the plaintiff but later on clarified it by a resolution dated 29-3-1967 terminating the Services of the plaintiff as Principal with effect from 24-10-1966, as from that date according to the Management the plaintiff had absented himself from duty. The plaintiff got the plaint amended adding pleas questioning the legality and validity of the action taken by the Management subsequent to the filing of the suit. Inter alia, the plaintiff alleged that the termination of his services as confirmed Principal being in violation of the provisions of the Meerut Act and the statutes, was void and in any case the Management not having obtained the approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the Meerut University as required by the Meerut Act, the termination of the services of the plaintiff never took effect. The contesting defendants, inter alia, set up a plea that the terms and conditions of the service of the plaintiff as Principal were governed by an agreement between him and the Management and were not governed by the provisions of the Act or Statutes of the Agra University or of the Meerut University and the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of injunction which was barred to him under the Specific Relief Act. It is not necessary to detail out all the other factual allegations of the parties averred in the pleadings as the same are not necessary for the purpose of disposing of this reference.

4. The trial Court took the view that as the plaintiff had not been appointed under any written agreement of contract as envisaged by the Statute of the Agra University, he was not entitled to the benefit of the Act and the Statutes and the fact that the resolution terminating the services of the plaintiff was not sent up for approval of the Vice Chancellor was therefore, of no avail. On this main finding the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

5. The lower appellate Court while affirming