( 1. ) THE petitioner Mahendra Kumar Sharma, who was an Upper division Clerk in the Jiwaji University by this petition under Article 226 of the constitution calls into question the order dated 6th January 1971 passed by the registrar of the University dismissing him from service.

( 2. ) THE petitioner has based his challenge to the order of dismissal on clause 18 of an Ordinance of the Vikram University which provides for conditions of service of University employees. The petitioner claims that this ordinance was adopted by the Jiwaji University as a regulation and that the conditions of his employment were statutorily regulated by the Ordinance read as a regulation. The petitioner contends that the order of dismissal was invalid and void and that he still continues in service because before passing the said order no "proper enquiry" was held into the charges levelled against him as is required by clause 18 of the Ordinance. In support of this contention the petitioner relies upon the case of K. N. Mishra v. The Vice Chancellor, jiwaji University (Mise. Petition No. 47o of 1967, decided on the 23rd April 1970.) which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court.

( 3. ) WHEN the present petition came up for hearing before another Division Bench of which one of us (Raina J ) was a member the correctness of the ruling in K. N. Mishras case was assailed and it was argued on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in U. P. S. W. Corporation, Lucknow v. C. K. Tyagi (AIR 1970 SC 1244.) that Regulations made by the University laying down conditions of service cannot be said to impose any statutory obligation on the University and the dismissal of the petitioner cannot be held to be void even if it was in breach of any regulation. In view of this argument the Division Bench referred this petition to a larger Bench. This is how the petition has come up before this full Bench.

( 4. ) BEFORE us the learned Advocate General, who appeared for the University, at the outset contended that the Ordinance of the Vikram University on which the petitioner relied was not adopted by the Jiwaji University either as an Ordinance or a Regulation and that only an administrative decision was taken by the Executive Council of the Jiwaji University to follow the Ordinances and Regulations of the Vikram University until the Jiwaji University made its own Ordinances and Regulations, and that the relationship between the parties being purely that of master and servant the order of dismissal cannot be held to be void even if there was no proper enquiry as contended by the petitioner. To appreciate this contention it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions and the resolution of the Executive Council.

( 5. ) THE Jiwaji University came to be constituted by the Jiwaji University Act, 1963, which came into force on 25th May 1963. Section 22 of the act deals with the Executive Council which is the executive authority of the university Powers and duties of the Executive Council are enumerated in section 23. The relevant provision in, this section is clause (xxiv) of subsection (1) which reads as follows:

"23. (1) Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or under the provisions of this Act, the Executive Council shall have the following powers and perform the following duties, namely:- (xxiv) save as otherwise provided by this Act, or the Statutes, to appoint the officers (other than the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and the Rector), teachers and other servants of the University, to define their duties and the conditions of their service, and to provide for the filling of temporary vacancies in their posts. "

Under the aforesaid provision the Executive Council has the power to define the duties and conditions of service of University employees This power is, however, subject to any otherwise provision made in the Act or in the Statutes. Section 35 of the Act deals with Statutes which may provide for the matters specified in the s