JUDGMENT

Mathur, J. - This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the Managing Committee of the K. G. K. (Post-Graduate) College through its President, S. N. Khanna, and also by S. N. Khanna for the issue of it writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12-8-1970 of the Vice-Chancellor of the Agra University, Agra, respondent no. 1, not granting approval to the termination of the services of respondent no. 2 P. C. Joshi, as Principal of the College. A request was also made for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct respondent no. 1, to grant approval to the termination of the services of respondent No. 2 and also to direct respondent no. 2 not to interfere in any manner with the running of the management of the College.

2. For the disposal of the Writ Petition it is not necessary to reproduce in detail the facts as given by the parties in their affidavits. It may here be simply mentioned that respondent no. 2 was appointed as Principal of the K. G. K. (Post Graduate) College on one year's probation under the letter annexure It to the Writ Petition and he took over charge as such on 4-3-1970. It was under' a resolution passed in it meeting of the Managing Committee held on 28-4-1970 that it was decided to terminate the services of the respondent no. 2 even though' he had put in only seven weeks' service. The services were to be terminated on giving one month's notice. The petitioner then moved the Vice Chancel' ]or of the Agra University for granting approval to the termination of the services. After making an enquiry the Vice Chancellor did not grant approval. The decision of the Vice-Chancellor was communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 14-8-1970 annexure XI to the Writ Petition.

3. The case of respondent no. 2 is that he was not appointed on probation and no meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 28-4-1970 and that he was a permanent Principal whose services could not be terminated except after holding a proper enquiry. The case of the Vice Chancellor is that at the time approval to the appointment of respondent no. 2 as Principal was obtained it was not indicated that the appointment was on probation. This' was made clear only when approval to the termination of the services of the respondent was asked for. It is pleaded that the enquiry conducted could be deemed to be for granting approval to the termination of the services of a probationer even though reference to Statute 30 (10) had been made at the end of the order.

4. Two material questions for determination are, whether the appointment of respondent no. 2'was on probation and secondly, if the grant of approval by the Vice-Chancellor is a condition precedent to the resolution of termination of services of a probationer becoming effective. In this connection it shall have to be seen whether the decision of the Vice-Chancellor can be deemed to be not under Statute 30 (10) but under Statute 30 (8) .

5. From the endorsement of respondent no. 2 and also from a subsequent letter of the respondent it is evident that his case with regard to oral contract prior to the issue of the appointment order, annexure II, is incorrect. If there was an oral contract that the appointment shall not be on probation, the respondent would have alleged in the subsequent letter that the appointment order is contrary to the oral agreement. He would not have pleaded that in the special circumstances of the case there should be no period of. probation or if necessary, the period be reduced to three months. It is a matter of regret. that a responsible person like respondent no: 2 took up a wrong plea. The Court has made this observation not to criticise the respondent but to bring about such an atmosphere that the Principal and the Managing Committee may be able to function properly to the best interest of the Institution. With this aim in view it is necessary to criticise the Principal and also the Managing Committee so that no one may feel that he has an upper han