A.P. Sen, J.

1. This is a petition by a teacher of a private educational institution, seeking to enforce Chapter XII of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh Regulations, 1965, against the Society which runs the School where he was employed. The petitioner seeks a declaration that he became a permanent employee of the Society by virtue of Regulation 71 and that his termination of service was in breach of Regulation 79 and, therefore, illegal, void and inoperative and prays for a consequential writ of mandamus directing the Society to withdraw the order of termination and to reinstate him in service.

2. Shortly stated, the facts are these. Vidyut Grih Siksha Samity, Korba, a body registered under the M.P. Non-trading Corporation Act, 1962, runs Vidyut Grih Higher Secondary School at Korba, which was previously a high school. The Society under its bye-laws has a Foundation Committee which is its Governing body, and an Executive Committee, i. e., its Managing Committee.

3. On 31-7-1968, the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee as Head Master of the High School on probation for a period of one year, on a pay-scale of Rs. 250-10-290-15-350-EB-20-450, w.e.f., 30-7-1968. Meanwhile, the High School became a Higher Secondary School. So on 1-9-1969, the Managing Committee appointed him as Principal temporarily on a pay-scale of Rs. 275-25-300-15-405-EB-20-550-25-700, w.e.f., 3-7-1968. Incidentally both the orders of appointment were subject to the following conditions-

"The appointment will be governed by the rules and regulations laid down by the Education Department of Madhya Pradesh Government for the recognised Schools in the State unless and otherwise specified from time to time."

The 2nd order, i. e., the one appointing the petitioner as Principal further provided -

"The appointment can be terminated on one month's notice or pay thereof on either side."

On 23-6-1971, the Managing Committee dispensed with the petitioner's services with immediate effect by giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice. Being aggrieved, the petitioner represented to the Divisional Superintendent of Education who by his Memo. dated 24-6-1971 threatened the Society with withdrawal of recognition of the school on the ground that the termination of the petitioner was wrongful being in breach of Regulation 79. But that had no effect and consequently, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition.

4. It is urged by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to the declaration sought and to the consequential writ of mandamus, on three grounds-

(1) The termination of service is not by a Managing Committee, duly constituted under Regulation 61(m). Alternatively, if the Executive Committee of the Society could be regarded as a Managing Committee, the meeting at which the resolution was passed, was not validly called because firstly, there was no nominee of the Divisional Superintendent of Education and secondly, the petitioner, who was a member, was not served with a notice.

(2) The service conditions of the petitioner were governed by Chapter XII of the Regulations and, under Regulation 71, he was a confirmed employee.

(3) Consequently, the termination of his service was invalid being in breach of the protection conferred by Regulation 79.

There is, in our opinion, no force in the contentions.

5. The Regulations were framed under section 28(2)(d) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam 1965, which reads as follows:

"28. Powers of Board to make Regulations--

(1) The Board may make Regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particulars and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Board may make Regulations providing for all or any of the following matters, namely :--

(d) the conditions of recognition of institutions for the purposes of admission to the privileges of the Board and framing of a School Code to ensure a minimum standard of efficient and unif