The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights and obligations of an employee of a private institution are governed by the terms of the contract entered into between the parties.

Hon'ble M.M. Ghildiyal J.: The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order- dated 29-042003 passed by the Lower Appellate Court rejecting the interim injunction application of the plaintiff! petitioner.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on 28-07 -1997 as a Resident Medical Officer, against the substantive vacancy, initially on probation for two years in the Birla Vidhya Mandir which is a private educational institution and is unaided. On completion of satisfactory probation period of two years, the services of the petitioner were confirmed on September 30th, 1999. The work and conduct of the petitioner was fully satisfactory without any complaint, notice, explanation-call or any adverse entry or disciplinary action.

3. The petitioner was also provided an accommodation in the college campus. On 06.12.2002., all of a sudden, the petitioner was terminated by stating that a number of complaints have been received in recent months from parents of the students about wrong diagnosis, in the result, the institution got a bad name and, as such, the petitioner is being terminated with immediate effect. Feeling aggrieved with the stigmatory termination letter dated 06/12/2002, the petitioner filed a representation before the Chairperson of the Board of Governors of the Institution on 11/01/2003 but no heed was paid to it. Consequently, she filed a suit for permanent injunction before learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nair1ital along with an application for temporary injunction. The temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner on 11/2/2003. Objection was filed by the institution and the learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties rejected the temporary injunction on 10/4/2003.

4. Aggrieved with the order, the petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2003. On 23/4/2003 the appeal was admitted and the status-quo order was passed. On 29/4/2003, the lower appellate court rejected the application for interim injunction. In the mean time, by order dated 18/4/2002 an order has been passed by the Institution to vacate the premises within the college campus, which was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner/appellant moved an application for stay of order dated 18/4/2002 also. The lower appellate Court, at the initial stage, permitted the petitioner to continue to reside in the accommodation, which was alloted to her. However, on 29/4/ 2003, the lower appellate court rejected the application stating that since the interim injunction, as a whole, has been rejected the application has also became in fructuous and, as such, is rejected. On 29/4/2003, the lower appellate court rejected the in1t junction application of the petitioner, which is under challenge under Article 227 before this Hon'ble Court by IS means of this writ petition.

5. Heard Sri. Sharad Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S. P. Aggarwal learned Counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent's institution is a private unaided educational Institution and according to rules known as Birla Vidhya Mandir, Nainital Service Rules, the appointments are made by the institution and employees are governed by the said Rules but in violation of the said Rules. The decision has been taken to terminate the services of the petitioner though the termination order is stigmatory in nature no procedure has been followed in accordance with the Rules. He has drawn my attention to Rule-41 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule41 is in respect of dismissal or removal. Rule-41 (1) provides that any employee who is charged with any misconduct, meriting, dismissal Or removal shall be given a charge sheet therefore. Rule 41 (2) provides for submission of charge sheet. Rule 41 Sub-Clause 1 & 2 of the aforesaid Rules is quoted below:

Rule 41(1): "Any employee who is charged with any misconduct meriting dismissal or removal shall