JUDGMENT Mukerji, J. - This is a petition by Shyam Behari Lal Kapoor who was appointed Principal of a Government aided College known as Anglo Sanskrit (Intermediate) College and Kumar Chandra Bhushan Singh Anglo Sanskrit High School. Fatehpur with effect from 1-7-1945. The Petitioner was confirmed in that post by a resolution of the executive committee of the college, dated 23-4-1946. An agreement was entered into in accordance with Rule 150(g) of the Educational Code of the Uttar Pradesh (1936). The agreement was entered into in the prescribed form which is to be found as Appendix X to the Educational Code One of the conditions of this agreement was, as provided for by Clause 15 of the agreement, that in case of any dispute arising in regard to the question of dismissal or reduction or withholding of salary the dispute was to be referred to a Committee of arbitrators which according to the agreement was to consist of (1) The Director or Deputy Director of Public Instructions, U.P.-as Chairman, (2) The Head Master of an Institution nominated by the Executive Committee of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Association, (3) A representative of the Managers nominated by the Managers' recognised representative body. The agreement also provided that the decision of this arbitration Committee was to be final and no suit was to lie in any civil court in respect of the matters decided by it. 2. Sometime in October, 1952 trouble grew between the Petitioner and the then Manager of the institution and a representation was made by the Principal to the District Inspector of Schools about the interference which the Manager of the school was doing in the sphere of activities which were the sole responsibility of the Principal. Whereupon the District Inspector of Schools is alleged to have written to the Manager directing him not to interfere with the day-to-day work of the Petitioner as Principal of the institution in matters which lay within his exclusive jurisdiction. There were certain matters in regard to the enforcement of discipline in the school in which, too, the Manager made unwarranted interference with the result that the breach between manager and the Petitioner became great and this breach apparently brought about the suspension of the Petitioner as Principal. Various charges were made against the Petitioner and he was in effect put under suspension in respect of those charges from 4-5-1953. Various charges were made against the Petitioner and he was in effect put under suspension in respect of those charges from 4-5-1953. On 14-5-1953 the Petitioner submitted his, explanation. The explanation was considered by the Managing Committee and by a resolution dated 7-6-1953, the Managing Committee of the institution decided to dismiss the Petitioner from service By a communication dated 12-6-1953 the Petitioner was informed as follows: This is to inform you that your replies to the charges framed were considered by the Executive Committee on 7-6-1953 and the Committee by majority has found most of the charges established. You have been dismissed from service. You have got a right to apply for review of the order within 15 days. Copy of the resolution with reasons therefor will be supplied to you after second meeting of the Executive, Committee as provided in the Educational Code.... This communication which has been filed as Annexure B by the Petitioner was signed by Sri Bansgopal, the manager of the institution. 3. On 9-7-1953 the Petitioner approached the Deputy Director of Education, Allahabad Region, by means of a communication sent through the District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur to refer the question of his dismissal to the "Committee of Arbitrators" in accordance with para. 15 of the Agreement (Appendix X of the Education Code) On 26-5-1954, the Deputy Director or Education, III Region, Allahabad, called upon the Petitioner to supply him with a brief narrative of his case and all relevant papers in support of his case. This was obviously in regard to the arbitration proceedings which were asked to be initiated by the Petitioner by his communication dated 9-7-1953 to the Deputy Director of Education. The form of the letter of the Deputy Director of Education, III Region, Allahabad, points out that the letter was regarding the case of Sri S.B.L. Kapoor Ex. Principal of A.S. Intermediate College, Fatehpur to be decided by the Regional Arbitration Board From the circumstances brought out in the affidavit of the Petitioner it is clear that arbitration proceedings had in fact been initiated. On 12-6-1954, the Petitioner sent the papers along with a statement of the case to the Deputy Director of Education. The matter has remained pending in so far as proceedings in arbitration has not been completed. On 12-6-1954, the Petitioner sent the papers along with a statement of the case to the Deputy Director of Education. The matter has remained pending in so far as proceedings in arbitration has not been completed. There appears to have been a hitch in the progress of these proceedings at an early stage because one of the arbitrators happened to be Sri S.C. Kapoor who refused to work on the Arbitration Board. On 24.1.1955, the Petitioner wrote to the Additional Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad a letter in these words: "In connection with the above as Sri S.C. Kapoor refused to preside over the Arbitration Board due to the point of communalism raised by the Manager and I am told you have recommended that the Deputy Director, Bareilly Region be requested to preside, you are now requested to ask Mr. Bhatia the present D.D.R., Allahabad to preside over the arbitration Board as the point of communalism no longer exists. As it is over 18 months that my case has been hanging fire, you are requested to expedite.... This letter makes it clear that the Arbitration Board had been formed and the manager of the institution had raised some sort of objection to one of the personnel of the Board. The point is further made clear by Annexure E which, is a letter from the Deputy Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh, dated 13-3-1956. No. GII/4867/XVI-1(36), that proceeding in arbitration had in fact been initiated, for this letter says among other things this: You are informed that, as your case has been referred to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Allahabad for initiating proceedings of an Arbitration Board, it is not possible for the department to accede to your request at this stage.... 4. After the suspense on of the Petitioner, his dismissal and his prayer to refer his dispute in regard to his dismissal to the Board of Arbitration, it appears that the management of the institution incurred the disapproval of the Education authorities in regard to the manner in which they had been conducting the management of the school so that on 9-5-1953, the grant-in-aid of the college was suspended by Government and on 22-10-1954 the Department of Education withdrew its recognition of the institution as Higher Secondary School. The institution for all practical purposes closed down. The institution for all practical purposes closed down. Government in order to give relief to the students who were having their education at this institution started an additional unit, for purpose of teaching, in one of their own institutions in the town. 5. The Arbitration proceedings made no progress for after the stoppage of the grant-in-aid and the withdrawal of recognition of the institution by the Education authorities, the Managing Committee of the school and the Manager took up the attitude that they were no longer amenable to the jurisdiction of the Board of Arbitrators which functioned under the Educational Code. This position was accepted by the department and the Petitioner was informed by a communication dated 18-5-1956 that in view of the fact that the management concerned did not submit further to the arbitration of the dispute and further in view of the fact that the school no longer existed it was not possible for the department to secure arbitration in the dispute and enforce the award made. The Petitioner was further directed to take such other action as he thought advisable or proper. 6. By this petition the Petitioner prays that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued to the opposite parties directing them to get the dispute decided forthwith by the Regional Arbitration Board of which the opposite party No. 2 is the Chairman. The contention of Mr. Kakkar appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that by refusing to arbitrate the Arbitration Board, and in particular the Deputy Director of Education of the region has failed to perform his statutory duty. Mr. Kakkar's contentions further were that the failure of the institution to cooperate in the arbitration proceedings, or stoppage of the grant-in-aid and withdrawal of recognition by Government could in no manner affect the right of the Board to arbitrate on the question which already had been referred to it for arbitration. On behalf of the State, Mr. Laxmi Saran contended that since the State could not enforce the award which may follow the arbitration, therefore, the Board of Arbitration could not be forced to undertake the arbitration and made an award thereon. Mr. Misra appearing on behalf of the institution has contended that the moment the grant-in-aid of this institution stopped and recognition was withdrawn the department ceased to have any jurisdiction on the institution and, therefore, the arbitration contemplated by Para. Mr. Misra appearing on behalf of the institution has contended that the moment the grant-in-aid of this institution stopped and recognition was withdrawn the department ceased to have any jurisdiction on the institution and, therefore, the arbitration contemplated by Para. 151-B of the Educational Code could not function in respect of the dispute between the Petitioner and the institution. I am unable to agree either with Mr. Laxmi Saran or with Mr. Misra. It is clear from the facts stated above that the arbitration proceedings had been initiated inasmuch as there had been a reference by the aggrieved party namely the Petitioner. Under para. 151-B of the Educational Code there are two Standing Regional Arbitration Boards in each region. Under Clause 15 of the agreement which was signed by the Managing Committee on the any hand and the Petitioner as one of its employees on the other, made it obligatory for either of these two parties to make a reference to the Board of Arbitrators in case of a dispute on the question of dismissal. There can be no doubt that there was a dispute on the question of dismissal of the Petitioner. The agreement that was signed between the management of the institution and the Petitioner also makes it clear that any amendment in the rules contained in the Educational Code was to be binding on the parties. It is clear from the provisions of para. 151-B of the Educational Code that the Standing Regional Arbitration Boards were statutory bodies for it has been held in Civil Miscellaneous (Writ) No. 186 of 1950 decided on 9-3-1951, that the Educational Code had statutory authority, inasmuch as, it was framed u/s 15 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 Para. 151-B of the Educational Code is as follows: 7. There shall be two Standing Regional Arbitration Boards in each region (one for the teachers and the other for headmasters and principals) to which all questions of dispute between the teachers or Head masters or Principals and the Managing Committees regarding dismissal., discharge or reduction or withholding of salary shall be referred. The boards shall be constituted as follows: (i) Regional Deputy Director of Education (President). (ii) One representative of the managers nominated by the Provincial Managers' Association. (iii) One representative of the teachers, headmasters or principals nominated by the UPSEA. 8. The boards shall be constituted as follows: (i) Regional Deputy Director of Education (President). (ii) One representative of the managers nominated by the Provincial Managers' Association. (iii) One representative of the teachers, headmasters or principals nominated by the UPSEA. 8. The Deputy Director, Region shall ask the Association concerned to nominate their representatives who shall belong to the same region, for every calendar year in good time. The Boards shall meet once every quarter and if necessary oftener to dispose off pending cases as speedily as possible. The Regional Inspectors may be present at the meetings to advise the Boards in respect of the cases of women teachers only. The decision of the Boards shall be final and not open to challenge in any court of law." 9. The provision afore-quoted makes it perfectly plain that the Arbitration Board comes into being as a statutary body whether there are any pending disputes or not and functions as a tribunal under the authority of law. Statutary obligation is cast on this Board to decide the disputes as are referable to them. Their jurisdiction does not seem to depend upon the withdrawal of either grant-in-aid or recognition of the institution in case the reference to them was possible at the time when the dispute arose. There is no provision in the Code which states that the withdrawal of grant-in-aid on the withdrawal of recognition of any institution would terminate, automatically, any proceedings that may have been pending before any of the Arbitration Boards constituted under para. 151-B of the Educational Code. It would be most anomalous if a dispute that arose between the teacher and an institution and which at that time was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Boards constituted under para. 151-B of the Code, would fail simply because for other reasons the department thought it necessary to punish the institution by stopping its grant-in aid and withdrawing its recognition. 151-B of the Code, would fail simply because for other reasons the department thought it necessary to punish the institution by stopping its grant-in aid and withdrawing its recognition. The fact that grant has been stopped or recognition withdrawn does not make the institution go out of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Board because the jurisdiction to refer matters to arbitration arose not out, and was not dependent upon receipt, of the grant-in-aid or continuance of recognition but depended upon terms of the agreement which had been entered into be (sic)een the Petitioner on the one hand and t(sic)managing committee on the other, The fact that an award, if made by the Board, may not be enforceable by the Education Department is no ground to refuse to do the arbitration enjoined by para. 151-B of the Educational Code. No statutary body in my opinion can refuse to perform its statutary function or discharge its statutary obligation merely on the ground that the order that may be passed by that body may not be effected or enforced by the body itself or in other words the body may not be able to recover any sums of money that it may award to one of the parties in respect of which it may have to perform its obligation. In a note to Clause 15 of the model agreement in Appendix X it is proved that if the management fails to honour the award made by the Arbitration Board, within three months of the date of Award the amount ordered for payment to the teacher or the headmaster, as the case may be, shall be deducted from the grant-in-aid of the institution and paid to the teacher or the head master concerned direct by the District Inspector of Schools under intimation to the management. This note was not a part of the agreement between the management and the Petitioner nor has any specific provision in the Educational Code been brought to my notice on which it could be said that the power of the Arbitrators to arbitrate was dependent on their ability to enforce their award. The Board of Arbitrators has to perform its function as aid down by law and they should have decided the dispute that had in fact been referred to them for decision. The Board of Arbitrators has to perform its function as aid down by law and they should have decided the dispute that had in fact been referred to them for decision. Whether the award that they made was enforceable by Government or not was no concern of theirs for their jurisdiction was not dependent upon that. 10. The contention of the management that they were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the board because grant-in-aid has been stopped and that recognition also has been withdrawn has no substance. The management had, by an agreement with the Petitioner, undertaker solemnly to refer the dispute that has now arisen between the Petitioner and the management, to the Arbitration Board; their agreement was not to continue, and was not at all dependent, upon the continuance of the grant-in-aid and the recognition. 11. For the reasons given above I am of the opinion that I should in this case and I do issue a writ of mandamus directing the appropriate Standing Regional Arbitration Board in respect of this particular case as established or as establishable under paragraph 151-B of he Educational Code to decide the dispute that arose between the Petitioner on the one hand and the management on the other in regard to the dismissal of the Petitioner from service. The Arbitration Board will follow the procedure prescribed for such an arbitration. They shall give due notice of the Arbitration proceedings to be held both to the Petitioner and the management of the Anglo Sanskrit Intermediate College and Kumar Chandra Bhushan Singh Anglo Sanskrit High School, Fatehpur. 12. The Board of Arbitrators shall expedite the hearing of this matter inasmuch as this matter has been pending for a very long time. 13. The Petitioner shall be entitled to the cost of this petition from the opposite parties.