By the Court.—S.S.V. (Post Graduate) College, Hapur is a recognised Institution affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut which is governed by the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The aforesaid College is on grant-in-aid of the State Government and the salary of its teaching and non-teaching staff is paid out of the funds made available by the State Government.

3. The aforesaid College apart from the other courses is running a B.Ed. Course under the self-financing scheme. The Committee of Management of the College on 31.1.2008 issued an advertisement inviting applications inter alia for appointment of seven Lecturers for the B.Ed. course run under the self-financing scheme.

4. The petitioner, who possessed the requisite qualifications, applied for being appointed as Lecturer and after successful in the selection was appointed as Lecturer B.Ed. in the College vide letter of appointment dated 25.3.2008. She joined duties w.e.f. 1.5.2009 after her selection was duly approved on 27.3.2008 by the Vice Chancellor of the University. The approval granted by the Vice Chancellor was extended for a further period of three years vide order dated 20.10.2015. The petitioner is continuing to function as Lecturer B.Ed. at the Institution under the self-financing scheme eversince her initial appointment.

5. The respondent No. 5, the Secretary of the Committee of Management of the College on 5.7.2017 passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of mis-conduct with immediate effect.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid order of the Secretary, the Principal of the College issued an office order dated 6.7.2017 notifying on the notice board that in accordance with the letter of the Secretary the services of the petitioner stands determined.

7. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the above two orders dated 5.7.2017 and 6.7.2017 terminating his services as Lecturer B.Ed. with immediate effect and has prayed for a direction commanding the respondents not to interfere in his functioning on the said post and for payment of continues salary.

8. We have heard Sri Manmohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the University and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

9. The counter and rejoinder-affidavits exchanged between the parties have also been perused.

10. Sri Manmohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Secretary of the Committee of Management of the College in his personal capacity has no authority in law to terminate the services of the petitioner as the impugned order of the Secretary is not backed by any resolution of the Committee of Management.

11. Secondly, the order terminating the services of the petitioner is by way of punishment without holding any inquiry or giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

12. Lastly, the services of the petitioner are not liable to be terminated without the approval of the Vice Chancellor which is not there.

13. In response to the above arguments, Sri Arvind Kumar submitted that as the petitioner was appointed under the self-financing scheme, the provisions of the Act or the First Statues of the University would not apply and that the Management is free to determine the services of the staff appointed under the self financeing scheme at any time without the approval of the Vice-Chancellor.

14. Apart from addressing the Court on the merits as above, he had also raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Committee of Management is a private body and its actions are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

15. There is no dispute to the fact that the College is receiving grant-in-aid and is affiliated to the University established under the Act. The mere fact