JUDGMENT Jagdish Sahai, J. - This is a special appeal by the Managing Committee of the Meerut College, Meerut, directed against the judgment of G. C. Mathur, J. dated 6th August, 1968, allowing writ petition No. 2041 of 1968 filed by the respondent No. 1. Dr. V. Puri, the Principal of the Meerut College. 2. The Meerut College was originally affiliated to the Agra University but now is an affiliated college of the Meerut University which has come into existence in 1965. 3. Dr. Puri was appointed the Principal of the Meerut College with effect from July 1, 1965, on six months' probation and was confirmed on that post with effect from January 1, 1966. On 12th of October, 1965 he and the Managing Committee of the College entered into an agreement a copy of which is Annexure `A' to the petition. 4. The Managing Committee passed a resolution on 12th June, 1968, terminating the services of Dr: Puri with immediate effect and appointing Dr. B. R. Agarwal as the officiating principal. The case of the college is.that it acted riot under clause 10 but under clause 14 of the agreement. The two clauses read :- "10. After confirmation, the. services of the Principal can be terminated only on one of the following grounds and with previous permission of the Vice-Chancellor :- (a) Wilful neglect of duty. (b) Misconduct : Including disobedience to the orders of the Managing Committee passed in accordance with the terms of this agreement and the Statutes, Ordinances and regulations of the University. (c) Breach of any of the terms of the contract. (d) Physical or mental. unfitness. (e) Incompetence; provided that the plea of incompetence shall not be used against the party of the first part after two years of confirmation. 14. Except when termination of service has taken place under sub-clause (a) (b) or (c) of clause 10 above neither the party of the first part nor the party of the second part shall terminate this Agreement, except by giving to the other party three calendar months notice in writing or by paying to the other party a sum equivalent to thrice the monthly salary which the party of the first part is then earning. Note :-The period of notice referred to above does not include the summer vacation or any part thereof." 5. Note :-The period of notice referred to above does not include the summer vacation or any part thereof." 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid resolution, Sri Sultan Singh Jain, Hon. Secretary of the Meerut College sent to Dr. Puri office letter No. 84 (4) dated 12/13th June, 1968, stating therein that his services have been terminated by the College Executive Committee by means of resolution No. 3 of 12th June, 1968, and that the college accountant was being directed to send him (Dr. Puri) a cheque for three months' salary in lieu of notice in addition to the salary for the month of June, 1968. In this letter Dr. Puri was asked to hand over charge to Dr. B. R. Agarwal. 6. It was prayed in the writ petition that this letter (described as order in the writ petition) be quashed by means of a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to the writ petition (1. The Managing Committee of Meerut College, 2. The Meerut College, 3. Dr. B. R. Agarwal) not to give effect to the order dated 121I3th June, n;58, or the resolution No. 3 passed on 12th June, 1968. 7. Dr. Puri also made the general prayer for the issue of any other writ, order or direction as this Court may, in the circumstances of the case, deem fit and proper to issue. 8. On behalf of Dr. Puri, the following submissions were made before G. C. Mathur, J. 1. That inasmuch as the Vice-Chancellor has not given his approval under Section 28 (3) of the Kanpur and Meerut University Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , the order terminating the services of Dr. Puri was bad and inoperative. 2. That the order of termination was made in violation of statute No. 29-A (4) of the Statute of the Agra University which, at the relevant time, were operative in the Meerut University. 3. That the order of termination was bad on the ground that the procedure prescribed by Statute 30 of the Agra University Act, had not been followed. 4. That the order terminating the services of Dr. Puri was bad because it contravened clause (10) of the agreement entered into by the College Managing Committee and Dr. Puri. 9. On behalf of the Managing Committee, it was contended that the conditions of service of Dr. 4. That the order terminating the services of Dr. Puri was bad because it contravened clause (10) of the agreement entered into by the College Managing Committee and Dr. Puri. 9. On behalf of the Managing Committee, it was contended that the conditions of service of Dr. Puri were regulated by the agreement executed by him and the Managing Committee of the College and assuming that there was a breach of the terms of the agreement, the matter was purely contractual and could not be dealt with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction by this Court. It was also contended on behalf of the Managing Committee that there was no contravention either of Section 28 (3) of the Act or Statute 29-A or Statute 30 or of clause (10) of the agreement. The case set up by the Managing Committee was that the Executive Committee had determined the employment of Dr. Puri by passing resolution of termination simpliciter and that it was not a case either of dismissal or removal. 10. G. C. Mathur, J. held that even a case of 'termination simpliciter' was one of "removal" and for that reason the Executive Committee had contravened the provisions of Section 28 (3) of the Act inasmuch as it had not obtained the approval of the Vice-Chancellor for doing so. He, there-fore, held that the order of the termination of Dr. Puri's services was ineffective. 11. G. C. Mathur, J. also held that the petitioner's services had been simply terminated and even though it was a "removal" within the meaning of that word occurring in Section 28 (3) of the Act, the provisions of Statute 29 (A) and Statute 30 had not been infringed. He also held that the "agreement entered into between the parties has the same force as the Act and Statutes" and that inasmuch as the termination of the petitioner's services was not covered by clause (10) of the agreement it is beyond the powers of the Managing Committee and is illegal. 12. He, therefore, allowed the writ petition and "declared the resolution and the order terminating the services of the petitioner as the Principal of the Meerut College, Meerut, as illegal" but directed the parties to bear their own costs. 13. In his judgment G. C. Mathur, J. expressed "disapproval of the conduct of Dr. 12. He, therefore, allowed the writ petition and "declared the resolution and the order terminating the services of the petitioner as the Principal of the Meerut College, Meerut, as illegal" but directed the parties to bear their own costs. 13. In his judgment G. C. Mathur, J. expressed "disapproval of the conduct of Dr. Puri in not handing over charge of his office as principal even after this Court had vacated the stay order. He alto censured the conduct of the Vice-Chancellor cf the Meerut University. 14. Mr. Khare who has appeared on behalf of the Managing Committee of the Meerut College has contended that the decision recorded by G. C. Mathur, J. is wrong on merits. Mr. Jagdish Swarup who has appeared for the Vice-Chancellor and Mr. Asif Ansari who has appeared for Dr. Puri have while supporting the judgment prayed that the remarks made against the Vice-Chancellor and Dr. Puri by G. C. Mathur, J. be expunged. 15. Mr. Khare has made the following Iwo submissions before us :- 1. The matter being contractual it was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The Executive Committee has terminated the services of Dr. Puri not by way of "dismissal" or "removal" but only as a "termination simpliciter" and inasmuch as the Act and Statutes do not require the approval of the Vice-Chancellor in a case of "termination of services simpliciter" there was nothing in law which prevented the executive committee from terminating the services of Dr. Puri in the manner in which it has done. 16. We proceed to consider the submissions seriatim. Admittedly the parties have entered into an agreement on 12-101966. He was necessary to do so because of the provisions of statute number 29 (A) of the Agra University Act and Section 28 of the Act which reads : "28 (1) Every teacher in an affiliated college, not being a college maintained exclusively by the Government shall be appointed under a written contract which shall contain such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. The written contract shall be lodged with the university and a ate cipy thereof shall be furnished each to the management and the teacher concerned ........" 17. The written contract shall be lodged with the university and a ate cipy thereof shall be furnished each to the management and the teacher concerned ........" 17. Its counter part in the Agra University Act is Section 25-C which reads : "Every teacher in an affiliated college not being a college maintained exclusively by the government, who is recruited after the commencement of Agra University (Amendment) Act 1958 shall be appointed under a written contract which will continue such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the Statutes". Sec. 30 of the Act provides that- "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes may provide for any matter relating to the university and shall, in particular, provide for the following .........." 18. Under Section 31 of the Act the State Government had for the Meerut University adopted the statutes of the Agra University including those contained in Chapter XVIII of the Agra University Hand Book 1965 66 and at the relevant time those statutes were in force. Statute 29 (A) reads : "Principals and all other members of the staff of the colleges other than those maintained by the government, shall be appointed on a definite written contract f permanent service which shall embody s he following points and shall be in the form appended at the end of this chapter." 19. An affiliated college, as the Meerut College admittedly is, is subject to a large number of statutory provisions and statutory restrictions. By virtue of the provisions of Section 10 (4) of the Act, the Vice-Chancellor has a general control over the affairs of all the affiliated colleges. The Meerut College, therefore is subject to the general control of the Vice-Chancellor. Section 26 (1) deals with the appointment of teachers of the University and the affiliated colleges and provides that teachers of the affiliated college shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (4) be appointed in the manner prescribed. The word 'prescribed' has been defined by Section 2 (k) of the Act as " 'prescribed' means prescribed by the statutes". The effect of Section 26 (1) is that the appointment of teachers of an affiliated college shall be made in the manner provided by the statutes and shall be subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of Section 26. Sub-sec. The effect of Section 26 (1) is that the appointment of teachers of an affiliated college shall be made in the manner provided by the statutes and shall be subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (4) of Section 26. Sub-sec. (4) of Section 26 provides that in a case where the appointment of one or mere teachers is made in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity lasting for six months or more, the appointment shall be reported by the management of the affiliated college to the Vice-Chancellor within fifteen days from the date of such appointment together with all the applications and connected papers. The continuance of the appointment shall be subject only to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor who may approve it or may disapprove the same. If he disapproved the services of the teacher or the teachers as the case may he shall be terminated as soon as may be, but in no case latter than the date of the expiry of the period of probation. The various clauses of Section 26 read together clearly show that the Managing Committee of an affiliated college is not completely free to make such appointments on the post of teachers as it likes. In the first place the appointment can only be made in the manner prescribed by statutes. Secondly, the appointment must receive the approval of the Vice-Chancellor and if the same is disapproved then the services of the teachers or the principal as the case may be is to be terminated. This is the position in the Act with regard to appointments. 20. Now, coming to the conditions of service of the teachers ,and the Principals of affiliated colleges it may be pointed out that Section 28 of the Act clearly provides that the agreement relating to the appointment of a teacher in an affiliated college 'shall contain such terms and conditions as may be prescribed'. This would show that even though there is a written agreement executed by the Management and the teacher, the conditions of service in an affiliated college are those prescribed by the statutes. It is not open to the Management to have conditions other than those provided by the statutes and clearly the freedom of agreement of the parties is curtailed by the Act and the statutes. Sub-sec. It is not open to the Management to have conditions other than those provided by the statutes and clearly the freedom of agreement of the parties is curtailed by the Act and the statutes. Sub-sec. (3) of Section 28 provides that all cases of dismissal or removal of teachers in an affiliated college shall be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and subject to the provisions contained in the Statutes shall not be effective unless the Vice-Chancellor has approved of the same. This would show that the requirement of the Act is that the approval of the Vice-Chancellor is a condition precedent to the appointment of a teacher as it is a condition precedent to his dismissal or removal. The Management of an affiliated college cannot contract to the contrary. Its freedom is also restricted with regard to the conditions of service of teachers because the conditions must be those prescribed by the statutes and not those agreed to by the parties in contravention of the Statutes. Sub-sec. (3) of Section 38 of the Act provides that the Management of an affiliated college shall be free to manage and control the affairs of a college except as provided by this Act. This provision clearly shows that in respect of matters which are dealt with by the Act or the Statutes (the Act requires adherence to Statutes) the management has no free hand. 21. Now coming to the Statutes it may be pointed out that the same require every affiliated College to appoint a principal. Statute 4 of the Agra University Statutes (we have already said earlier that those Statutes were in force in the Meerut University also at the relevant time) requires that all changes in the staff of an affiliated college shall be communicated to the Registrar within a month along with the details of arrangements made and qualifications of persons appointed. 22. Statute prescribed the qualifications of the Principles and teachers of affiliated colleges. 23. 22. Statute prescribed the qualifications of the Principles and teachers of affiliated colleges. 23. Statute 5-F reads : "Teachers in affiliated colleges in Faculties other than Medicine, Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, and Technology shall possess the following qualifications :- F.-Principals of affiliated colleges : One with qualifications as in A above; provided he is qualified to become Head of a degree department in the case of a Principal of Degree College and to become Head of a post-graduate department, in the case of a Principal of post-graduate college; provided further that a person for being appointed to the post of Principal in the degree or post-graduate colleges, as the case may be, must not be less than 35 years of age." 24. Statute 8 gives the scale of pay of the principal of the affiliated colleges. 25. Statutes 28 reads : "The scale of pay for teachers of affiliated colleges may be prescribed from time to time by the Executive Council with the previous approval of the State Government. 26. Statute 30 provides that- "Every decision by the Management of an affiliated College, other than a college maintained by Government, to dismiss or remove from service a teacher shall be subject to the provisions of this Statute. 27. Clause (d) of Statute 30 (5) provides that before the Principal of a college is suspended a prima facie case must be made out against him and sent to the Vice-Chancellor, whose prior consent must be taken before the Principal is actually suspended. 28. Clause 10 of Statute 30 requires that every decision of the Management about the dismissal or removal from service of a teacher shall be reported forthwith, along with a complete report and all connected papers, to the Vice-Chancellor who shall consider whether the provisions of the above Statutes have been complied with. If he is satisfied that the provisions of the Statutes have not been complied with or that the grounds on which the teacher has been dismissed or removed from service are not adequate, he will disapprove of the decision of the Managing Committee. 29. That provision further requires that the decision of the Managing Committee will operate only if and when approved by the Vice-Chancellor. 30. 29. That provision further requires that the decision of the Managing Committee will operate only if and when approved by the Vice-Chancellor. 30. Clause (11) of Statute 30 reads : "In any dispute not covered by the Statute or the agreement between the college and the teacher, the same shall be referred to the Vice-Chancellor whose decision shall be final." 31. Statute 31 provides the categories of leave to which a teacher in an affiliated college is entitled. 32. Statute 32 provides for casual leave, Statute 33 for privilege leave, Statute 34 for sick leave, Statute 35 for duty leave. Statute 36 for long term leave, Statute 37 for extraordinary leave-and Statute 38 for maternity leave. 33. Statute 43 provides that a teacher of an affiliated college, other than that maintained by the Government of any State, appointed to substantive appointment shall, as a condition of his service, become a subscriber of the college Provident Fund. 34. Statute 44 provides for the contribution by a teacher towards the Provident Fund and Statute 45 provides that the minimum contribution by the management shall be 6-14% of the salary of a teacher. 35. The provisions of the Act and the Statute enumerated above clearly show, firstly, that the entire conditions of service of a teacher or a principal of an affiliated college are governed by the Act and the Statutes; secondly, that the terms of the agreement between the parties have to be those mentioned in the Act and the Statutes; and thirdly, that the Vice-Chancellor has overall control over the affairs of affiliated colleges and has certain statutory duties to perform in respect of the same as, for example, if he is satisfied that the teacher or a principal has been wrongly removed or dismissed he has to, as a part of his duty, "disapprove the decision of the Managing Committee." 36. In the instant case there cannot be any manner of doubt that the agreement entered into by Dr. Puri and the Management of the Meerut College was executed under the compulsion of the Act and the Statutes. Its term had to be in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. A reading of the agreement reveals that, in fact, the agreement reproduces most of the terms and conditions of service as prescribed by the Act and the Statutes. Its term had to be in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. A reading of the agreement reveals that, in fact, the agreement reproduces most of the terms and conditions of service as prescribed by the Act and the Statutes. In a way, therefore, the agreement is a creature of the Act' and the Statutes and it cannot for that reason either supersede or be considered to be independent of the Act and the Statutes. Even if there were to contract between the parties the provisions of the Act and the Statutes requiring approval of the Vice-Chancellor to the termination of the services of a teacher or a principal shall stand unaffected and will be fully effective by virtue of their own authority. The absence of a contract would not multiply the provisions of the Act and the Statutes nor would render them any less effective. The requirement for the execution of an agreement between the teacher or a Principal of a college and its management has been provided for in order to bring into existence a self contained document giving all the conditions of service. An affiliated college is an autonomous body, though its autonomy is a very controlled one. It had to manage its own affairs, recruit its own staff and provide the conditions of service of the staff. The legislature, therefore, enacted that after appointment is made, the appointee and the management shall enter into an agreement to be executed in the prescribed form with such terms in the agreement as prescribed by statutes and not those which the parties may agree to. 37. When the non-Government teaching institutions were originally started there were no clear, specific and detailed rule.; with regard to a several matters concerning conditions of service of a teacher or a principal and many of the provisions ensuring a safe tenure to a teacher or a principal contained in the various Acts of the Universities or the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination did not exist with the result that it became a common practice to have an agreement drawn up between the teacher and the Principal on the one hand and the Management of the institution on the other containing the conditions of service of the former. The Act and the Statutes recognise the practice and provide for its continuance but force the management and the Principal or the teacher to have only such terms and conditions of service as are provided for by the Act and the Statutes. The contract has to be executed because the Act and the Statutes require it to be executed. The parties cannot do otherwise than to execute an agreement. Its terms are not to be those which the parties agree to but those which the Act and the Statute require to be incorporated. In the instant case, therefore, the contract was not executed, because of the free will of the parties but under the compulsive force of the Act and the Statutes and the terms contained therein are not those voluntarily agreed to by parties but those which are prescribed. 38. It, therefore, appears to us that the matter is not purely contractual. 39. We find no merits in the submission of Mr. Khare that even though the agreement in the present case was executed by Dr. Puri and the Management of Meerut, College by virtue of the provisions and as a compulsory requirement of the Act and the Statutes, the relationship of master and servant between Dr. Puri and the Meerut College i; based merely upon that agreement. We have already pointed out that the Act and the Statutes require every affiliated college to have a principal appointed with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor and that practically all the conditions of service of the Principal including the matter relating to his appointment, leave, provident fund removal and dismissal arc governed by the Act and the Statutes. Therefore, even though the Meerut College is the employer and Dr. Puri, the employee, it is wrong to say that the relationship of master and servant between the two is only regulated by the contract entered into by the parties and not by the Act and the Statutes. 40. We have also shown above that under the provisions of the Act and the Statute; the Vice-Chancellor has statutory duties to perform in respect of all affiliated colleges. He is required to see that proper and qualified persons are appointed Teachers and Principals and to disapprove of appointments not legally or properly made. He must intervene in a case of a wrongful or improper suspension of a teacher or Principal. He is required to see that proper and qualified persons are appointed Teachers and Principals and to disapprove of appointments not legally or properly made. He must intervene in a case of a wrongful or improper suspension of a teacher or Principal. He is also required to intervene and disapprove of an order of dismissal or removal of a teacher if he is satisfied that the same has been brought about by contravening the provisions of law or that the order is not proper. The Vice-Chancellor has been made the judge not only of the legality of the order but also its propriety and the law requires him to disapprove of the action proposed to be taken against the teacher if he is satisfied that it is illegal or improper. We are, therefore, of the opinion that, in a case like the present one, the Vice-Chancellor has statutory duties to perform and the matter is not purely contractual. 41. We now come to the question whether the agreement between the parties in the instant case has the same force as the Act and the Statutes. Gyan Chand Mathur, J. has taken the view that it has. We have pointed out that the agreement had to be executed under the compulsive force of the Act and the Statutes. Its term had to be those which were prescribed by the Act and the Statutes. In other words, the agreement had to reiterate what was already contained in the Act and the Statutes and this reiteration the parties had to make not on their volition but under the compulsion of the Act. In similar circumstances a learned single Judge of this Court took the view that such an agreement was a statutory one and had the force of law. see Managing Committee of Krishak Higher Secondary School, Raisi v. Isham Singh, 1965 ALJ 116. Some support for our view can also be found from International Railway Company v. Niagara Parks Commission, 1937 Privy Council 214. see Managing Committee of Krishak Higher Secondary School, Raisi v. Isham Singh, 1965 ALJ 116. Some support for our view can also be found from International Railway Company v. Niagara Parks Commission, 1937 Privy Council 214. In that case the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council observed : "Where an agreement is approved, ratified, confirmed and declared to be valid and binding on the parties thereto by an Act of the Legislature, the effect of this statutory confirmation is to render every provision and stipulation of the agreement as obligatory and binding on the parties as if these provisions had been repeated in the form of Statutory sections." 42. We also derive support from Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1963 SC 953. In this case the Supreme Court observed : "There is no magic in the expression `legislative contract'. A contract is a compact between two or more parties and is either executory or executed. If a statute adopts or confirms it, it becomes law and is no longer a mere contract. That is all that a legislative contract means." 43. In the present case the statute has not adopted or confirmed the agreement but clearly the agreement is the creature of the Act and the Statutes and embodies as its terms the requirements of the Act and the Statutes. In our opinion, therefor?, these cases are helpful in the decision of the case before us. In S.P. Srivastava v. Banaras Electric Light and Power Company Ltd., 1968 ALJ 257 (FB) a Full Bench of this Court held that the standing orders framed by a company under the Standing Orders Act, 1916 are statutory. This case also in our opinion, supports the view that we are taking. In our view the contract between the par-ties has the force of law. 44. Mr. Khare has placed reliance upon Vidyodaya University of Ceylon v. Silva, (1964) 3 All ER 856 and has submitted that in similar circumstances the Privy Council held that the relationship between Silva and the University was governed by contract and that no writ of certiorari could under the circumstances issue. The facts of that case arc very different from those before us. Unlike the Ceylon case in our case the agreement has to contain what is provided by the and the Statutes. The facts of that case arc very different from those before us. Unlike the Ceylon case in our case the agreement has to contain what is provided by the and the Statutes. In the Ceylon case the agreement had to contain such terms as the University council might resolve. Therefore, in the Ceylon case it could be said that the agreement if executed would not have the force of Statute or law. 45. Mr. Khare has also placed reliance upon Barber v. Manchester Regional Hospital Board, 1958 (1) All ER 322. The facts of that case are also very different. It was also not a case where the agreement was executed under the compulsive force of the Act and the Statutes and had to incorporate as its terms what was provided by the Acts and the Statutes, thus leaving the parties practically no free will. Besides, in the instant case we are holding that apart from the breach of the contract, there is also a breach of the provisions of the Act and the Statutes and that the Vice-Chancellor has acted to the discharge of statutory duties in disapproving of the order terminating the services of Dr. Puri, with the result that the order terminating the services of Dr. Puri is invalid, and inoperative and the matter is not purely contractual. 46. The second submission of Mr. Khare is that apart from the power to dismiss or remove a Principal, the Management has also the power to simply terminate his services under clause 14 of the agreement. It is contended that it is an absolute power belonging to the management and in the exercise of this power the approval of the Vice-Chancellor is not necessary. 47. In our, opinion this alleged general power to terminate the services of a Principal at will does not exist. It may be pointed out that statute 29(A) is emphatic that "Principals ..........shall be appointed on a definite written contract of permanent service. (Italicised by us) . "The words "definite" and "permanent service" are significant. The guarantee is that the Principal shall have a permanent service or a tenure not on pleasure but during good behaviour. This would be inconsistent with the College Management having the power to terminate the services of a Principal at will and without assessing any cause. 48. (Italicised by us) . "The words "definite" and "permanent service" are significant. The guarantee is that the Principal shall have a permanent service or a tenure not on pleasure but during good behaviour. This would be inconsistent with the College Management having the power to terminate the services of a Principal at will and without assessing any cause. 48. Clause 14 of the agreement does not confer any power on the management to terminate the services of a principal. It speaks "of terminating the agreement" and not of terminating the services. After a Principal has been confirmed, his services can be terminated only on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of clause 10 of the agreement. This clause is almost a verbatim reproduction of Statute 29 (A) (4) of the Statutes. Both statute 29 (A) (4) and clause 10 of the agreement clearly provide that after confirmation the services of a Principal can be terminated only on one of the grounds specified in clause (a) to (e) . The use of the word "only" in both of them is very significant and excludes the possibility of there being termination of services on any other ground. Consequently we are satisfied that neither the Act nor the Statutes nor the agreement which only incorporates the relevant provisions of the Act and the Statutes contemplates termination of service simpliciter. 49. In our opinion clause 14 only gives the mode or the method by which the services of a Principal may, under certain circumstances, be terminated. This is apparent from the provisions of statute 30 (6) of the Statutes, which reads : "The Committee of Management may in accordance with the terms of agreement, also remove from service a teacher on any one of the following grounds; provided the management gives to such teacher at least three months' notice or in lieu of such notice, makes payment of three months' salary then being earned by the teacher :- (i) Physical or mental unfitness; (ii) Abolition of the post with the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor." 50. It may be pointed out that according to the definition (Sec. 2 (p) of the Act) "teacher" includes a Principal. It may be pointed out that according to the definition (Sec. 2 (p) of the Act) "teacher" includes a Principal. It is clear from this statute as also from the language of clause 14 of the agreement that the services of a Principal by means of the termination of the agreement can also be terminated in case of physical or mental unfitness or in that of abolition of the post after giving him three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof and with the prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor. In other cases services can be terminated only on the grounds contained in and after following the procedure given in the Statutes. In those cases three months' notice or payment of three months' salary is not necessary. After the services have been terminated by passing an order of dismissal or removal the agreement would have to be terminated for the termination of the agreement would result in the formal break of the relationship of the master and the servant. 51. It would be noticed that under clause 10 of the agreements or statute 29 (A) (4) of the Statutes services of a Principal can be terminated only on the grounds : firstly that he has wilfully neglected his duty; secondly, that he has misconducted himself; thirdly, that he has committed breach of any of the terms of the agreement: fourthly, that he is physically or mentally unfit; and lastly, that he is incompetent but his- services can be terminated on the ground of incompetence only within two years of his confirmation. Clause 14 of the agreement in effect provides that in cases where a removal order has been passed for wilful neglect of duty or of misconduct or breath of any terms of the contract, the services of a Principal can be terminated by terminating the agreement forthwith. But in the remaining two cases only either after three months' notice has been given or three months' salary paid. 52. We find nothing in clause 14 of the agreement to the effect that the services of a Principal can be terminated without assigning any cause that is to say without his case falling in any of the clauses (a) to (e) of clause 10 of the agreement or without the post having been abolished. 53. Mr. 52. We find nothing in clause 14 of the agreement to the effect that the services of a Principal can be terminated without assigning any cause that is to say without his case falling in any of the clauses (a) to (e) of clause 10 of the agreement or without the post having been abolished. 53. Mr. Khare has contended that an employer can get rid of an employee either by dismissing him or by removing him or by simply terminating his services. It is true that in connection with the cases of Government servants or persons holding civil posts under a State or the Federation those three kinds of discharge are contemplated. This is so because the Government servant rules provide for the same. However, even in the case of Government servants or persons holding civil posts termination of services simpliciter is possible only if it is permitted by the agreement, if any, between the parties or by the temporary Government servant rules. In the case of permanent and confirmed Government servants an order simply terminating their services can not be passed if the post on which he is working is itself not abolished. In the present case there are no rules under which the services of a confirmed Principal can be terminated without assigning any reason and we have already said earlier that clause 14 of the agreement does not provide for termination of services simpliciter, except on the ground of mental or physical unfitness or when the post is abolished. 54. The Management can have no inherent power also to terminate the services z--of Dr. Puri because it is well settled that if there is a statute regulating the condition of services of an employee any exercise of power against him must be called out from the Statute. See Smt. Hira Devi v. District Board, Shahjahanpur, A.I.R. 1952 SC 362. 55. The Act and the Statutes have used only two words that is "dismissal" and "removal" to cover all cases of termination of services of a Principal or a teacher. Even in clause 6 of statute 30 which deals with discharge under the agreement (clause 14 in the present case) the word used is "removed" and not "services terminated" The Act and the Statutes do not contemplate a third kind that is termination of services simpliciter. Even in clause 6 of statute 30 which deals with discharge under the agreement (clause 14 in the present case) the word used is "removed" and not "services terminated" The Act and the Statutes do not contemplate a third kind that is termination of services simpliciter. Section 28 (3) of the Act uses only the words "dismiss or remove". Statute 29 (A) (4) uses the words "the grounds on which services can be terminated". In this provision the words "dismissal or removal" have not been used. In clause 10 of the agreement also the words used are "the services of the Principal can be terminated" without the use of the words "dismissal or removal". This would show that the words "termination of services", "dismissal" and "removal" are inter-changeable and in the Act and the Statutes the expression "termination of services" is not used in the sense in which Mr. Khare wants to use that expression. In the opening words of Statute (30) and in its clause (1) the words used are "dismiss or remove" or "dismissing or removing". In clause (6) of that statute even while referring to the terms of agreement, the words used are not "terminate the services" but to "remove from service". In Clause (8) of Statute 30 it is provided that "in the case of a teacher appointed on probation, .......... if by the end of the period of probation no notice of termination or removal from service ............ has been received ............., he/she will ipso facto be confirmed in his/her appointment; provided further that the termination of or removal from service of a teacher on probation shall not take effect except with the previous approval of the Vice-Chancellor." 56. It, therefore, appears to us that the words "termination" and "removal" are inter-changeable. Even while dealing with the case of a teacher on probation the words "termination" and "removal" have been equated. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there are no merits in the submission of Mr. Khare that apart from dismissal or removal as provided by statute 29-A of the Statutes or clause 10 of the agreement, the management of the Meerut College has the power to pass an order simply terminating the services of the Principal. 57. Mr. Khare has placed reliance union Dr. Akshaibar Lal v. Vice-Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, A.I.R. 1961 SC 619. That case is clearly distinguishable. 57. Mr. Khare has placed reliance union Dr. Akshaibar Lal v. Vice-Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, A.I.R. 1961 SC 619. That case is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion Statute 29(A) (4) of the Statutes and clause 10 of the agreement are exhaustive of the circumstances under which and the grounds on which the services of a Principal can be terminated. 58. Mr. Khare has also placed reliance upon S.R. Tewari v. District Board, Agra, 1963 ALJ 944. In our opinion that case is also clearly distinguishable being a decision on provisions wholly different from those which we are considering. Besides, that case is only an authority for the proposition that in the District Board Act the expression "dismissal" would not include termination of services simpliciter and not that the word "removal" would not also so include. 59. It would be noticed that the Act and the Statutes are very jealous to protect a Principal or a teacher from a capricious discharge from service. In fact Statute 29(A) provides that "Principal ......... shall be appointed on a definite written contract of permanent service." The requirement of permanent service has been made to ensure a safe and durable tenure. The Act and the Statutes clearly provide that in cases of dismissal and removal the approval of the Vice-Chancellor must be obtained. It would be subversive to the Scheme of the Act and the Statute to hold that even though the Act and the Statutes have so jealously safeguarded the interest of a Principal or a teacher, the agreement gives a weapon in the hands of the Management by which he can be beaten out of his post ,by the Management by simply saying that an order terminating his services simpliciter has been passed. The existence of such a power can neither be culled out from the provisions of the Act or Statutes nor from clause 14 of the agreement nor would it be consistent with the scheme of the Act, the Statutes and the agreement. We, therefore, find no merits in the second submission of the learned counsel also. 60. There has been controversy at the Bar as to whether or not in the instant case there has been a breach of Statute 29 (A) also. G. C. Mathur, J. has taken the view that there has been no such breach. We, therefore, find no merits in the second submission of the learned counsel also. 60. There has been controversy at the Bar as to whether or not in the instant case there has been a breach of Statute 29 (A) also. G. C. Mathur, J. has taken the view that there has been no such breach. The reason that he has assigned for this view is that "once an agreement is executed and the points mentioned in statute 29 (A) are incorporated therein, the provisions of statute 29 (A) are fully complied with and thereafter there can be no violation of this Statute." In our view statute 29(A) and the agreement cannot be separated. We have already said earlier that the agreement is the creature of the Act and the Statutes. Statute 29(A) (4) is a mandatory provision exhausting the grounds on which the services of a Principal can be terminated. Inasmuch as the services of Dr. Puri have been terminated without assigning any reason, the order terminating his services is in derogation of the pro-visions of Statute 29 (A) (4) . With great respect to the learned single Judge, we are of the opinion that in the instant case there has been a violation of statute 29-A also. 61. For the reasons mentioned above we are in agreement with G. C. Mathur, J. that Dr. Puri was entitled to a relief from ' this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 62. It has been contended that a servant cannot be forced on a master and that there can be no specific performance of a contract relating to personal service. In our opinion this principle does not apply in the present case because we have already said that the matter is not purely contractual and in terminating the services of Dr. Puri, the Management of the Meerut College has breached statutory provisions. 63. A request was made to us on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor to expunge the following observation relating to the Vice-Chancellor in the judgment of G. C. Mathur, J. :- "I am also constrained to observe that the Vice-Chancellor has not acted in the manner expected of a person holding that high office." 64. 63. A request was made to us on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor to expunge the following observation relating to the Vice-Chancellor in the judgment of G. C. Mathur, J. :- "I am also constrained to observe that the Vice-Chancellor has not acted in the manner expected of a person holding that high office." 64. It is true that the Vice-Chancellor took the steps which are mentioned in the judgment of G. C. Mathur, J., but, in our opinion, this he did bona fide in the discharge of his duty as the Vice-Chancellor. He was not motivated either by any malice against the Management Committee or bias in favour of Dr. Puri. We have already pointed out earlier to the various provisions in the Act and the Statutes showing that the Vice-Chancellor has an over all control over the affairs of the Meerut College. The District Magistrate was the President of College. The District Magistrate was the President of Management Committee of the Meerut College. Any communication made by the Vice-Chancellor to the District Magistrate was justified. Inasmuch as the removal of Dr. Puri from service was subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, we see no impropriety on his part in advising Dr. Puri not to hand over charge of his office. The Vice-Chancellor had asserted him authority. He could not abdicate his functions. With great respect to G. C. Mathur, J., we are of the opinion that the censure about the Vice-Chancellor's conduct by him was not merited or justified. 65. As regards Dr. Puri, we see no reason to differ from G. C. Mathur, J. in respect of the former's censure. 66. For the reasons mentioned above we find no merits in this special appeal and dismiss it with costs.