JUDGMENT

M. H. Beg, J. - The petitioner was the Principal of Rashtriya Inter College, Karamber, in the District Ballia. He alleges that his services have been wrongly terminated by the Managing Committee of the College, opposite party No. 1. He asserts that he was a victim of a plan to oust him from his post because the Manager of the College, one Jagannath Shukla wanted to dislodge the petitioner somehow in order to make room for the manager's brother-in-law, Krishna Deo Pandey, who was an assistant teacher in a Higher Secondary School. Although the petitioner alleged, in paragraph 26 of this petition, that the Managing Committee, after passing a resolution on 10-7-1966, sent a communication to the District Inspector of Schools, opposite party No. 3, on 13-7-1966, recommending the termination of services of the petitioner, yet, he has come to this Court on the assumption that be has been actually punished. His complaint is that the procedure laid down in Regulations 35 to 37, which applies to cases or punishment, was not followed by the Managing Committee of the College.

2. It was recently pointed out by me, in Sri Ganga Prasad Singh v. The, Regional Appellate Committee, Civil Misc. Writ No. 4217 of 1964. decided on 6.2.1969 that the procedure for a termination of service by notice is different from procedure for punishment. If, as the petitioner alleged, the management had only recommended, and, presumably proposed, the termination of petitioner's services by notice, the procedure found in Regulation 35 to 37 was not applicable at all to the petitioner's case. The petitioner has not alleged, in his petition, that conditions necessary for a valid notice of termination of service, either found in Regulations 25 to 28 of Chapter III of the Regulations dealing with conditions of service, or in some contract of service, had not been fulfilled. The letter of the District Inspector of Schools to the petitioner dated 17-12-1966 also shows that approval was given to a proposed termination of the petitioner's services as required by Section 16-G (3) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . The Deputy Director also dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order "approving the termination of services of Sri S. P. Tewari, Principal, Rashtriya Inter College, Karambar, Ballia."

3. I do not think that the order of approval could be vitiated merely because it was made by the Deputy Director after an apparently detailed inquiry into charges and references made to some disciplinary proceedings, which are not necessary at all in a simple case of termination of service by notice but which seem to have been taken by the Managing Committee against the petitioner. The petitioner does not seem to have alleged before the Deputy Director that he was being really punished in the garb of a notice of termination of service. Nor has such a case been specifically set up in this Court. His petition is based on the assumption that Regulations 35 to 37 of Chapter III, mentioned above, should have been applied to his case by the Managing Committee of the College as he was punished. The petitioner's real grievance is against the Managing Committee, and he has applied for writs of certiorari to quash the resolution of committee passed on 10-7-1966 as well as the orders of approval passed by the District Inspector and the Deputy Director of Education.

4. An objection. in the nature of a preliminary objection to the petition may, be mentioned here. It is that a writ of certiorari does not issue against a private institution merely because it is regulated by an Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. The petitioner has not even alleged that the college is administered under a scheme of administration enjoined by the Act. But, even assuming that it is governed by such a scheme, the Act and the Regulations merely provide a pattern and its requirements under the law. Article 226 of the Constitution no doubt extends to