JUDGMENT Mathur, J. - This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the Managing Committee of the K. G. K. (Post-Graduate) College through its President, S. N. Khanna, and also by S. N. Khanna for the issue of it writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12-8-1970 of the Vice-Chancellor of the Agra University, Agra, respondent no. 1, not granting approval to the termination of the services of respondent no. 2 P. C. Joshi, as Principal of the College. A request was also made for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct respondent no. 1, to grant approval to the termination of the services of respondent No. 2 and also to direct respondent no. 2 not to interfere in any manner with the running of the management of the College. 2. For the disposal of the Writ Petition it is not necessary to reproduce in detail the facts as given by the parties in their affidavits. It may here be simply mentioned that respondent no. 2 was appointed as Principal of the K. G. K. (Post Graduate) College on one year's probation under the letter annexure It to the Writ Petition and he took over charge as such on 4-3-1970. It was under' a resolution passed in it meeting of the Managing Committee held on 28-4-1970 that it was decided to terminate the services of the respondent no. 2 even though' he had put in only seven weeks' service. The services were to be terminated on giving one month's notice. The petitioner then moved the Vice Chancel' ]or of the Agra University for granting approval to the termination of the services. After making an enquiry the Vice Chancellor did not grant approval. The decision of the Vice-Chancellor was communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 14-8-1970 annexure XI to the Writ Petition. 3. The case of respondent no. 2 is that he was not appointed on probation and no meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 28-4-1970 and that he was a permanent Principal whose services could not be terminated except after holding a proper enquiry. The case of the Vice Chancellor is that at the time approval to the appointment of respondent no. 2 as Principal was obtained it was not indicated that the appointment was on probation. The case of the Vice Chancellor is that at the time approval to the appointment of respondent no. 2 as Principal was obtained it was not indicated that the appointment was on probation. This' was made clear only when approval to the termination of the services of the respondent was asked for. It is pleaded that the enquiry conducted could be deemed to be for granting approval to the termination of the services of a probationer even though reference to Statute 30 (10) had been made at the end of the order. 4. Two material questions for determination are, whether the appointment of respondent no. 2'was on probation and secondly, if the grant of approval by the Vice-Chancellor is a condition precedent to the resolution of termination of services of a probationer becoming effective. In this connection it shall have to be seen whether the decision of the Vice-Chancellor can be deemed to be not under Statute 30 (10) but under Statute 30 (8) . 5. From the endorsement of respondent no. 2 and also from a subsequent letter of the respondent it is evident that his case with regard to oral contract prior to the issue of the appointment order, annexure II, is incorrect. If there was an oral contract that the appointment shall not be on probation, the respondent would have alleged in the subsequent letter that the appointment order is contrary to the oral agreement. He would not have pleaded that in the special circumstances of the case there should be no period of. probation or if necessary, the period be reduced to three months. It is a matter of regret. that a responsible person like respondent no: 2 took up a wrong plea. The Court has made this observation not to criticise the respondent but to bring about such an atmosphere that the Principal and the Managing Committee may be able to function properly to the best interest of the Institution. With this aim in view it is necessary to criticise the Principal and also the Managing Committee so that no one may feel that he has an upper hand and can act in any manner not necessarily for the interest of the Institution. 6. It is thus proved that respondent No. 2 was appointed an one year's probation. 7. With this aim in view it is necessary to criticise the Principal and also the Managing Committee so that no one may feel that he has an upper hand and can act in any manner not necessarily for the interest of the Institution. 6. It is thus proved that respondent No. 2 was appointed an one year's probation. 7. The Statutes make a provision not only for dismissal or removal from service of a Principal but also for the termination of the services of a probationer. Under Statute 30(9) 'services of a probationer can be terminated but the decision shall not take effect till it is approved by the Vice-Chancellor. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that Statute 30 (8) is beyond the powers, con (erred by the Agra University Act and consequently this part of the Statute is invalid and ineffective. Reliance is placed upon the use of the words 'dismiss or remove' used in Section 25-C (2) of the Agra University Act. It is contended that Statute could be framed with regard to dismissal or removal, i.e. where the termination of services is by way of punishment, and not where the services of a temporary employee or probationer are being simply terminated not by way of punishment. It is not necessary to record any opinion on this point as Statute 30 (8) can be supported on other grounds. Sub-Sec. (1) of Section 25-C of the Agra University Act provides that every teacher in an affiliated college, not being a college maintained exclusively by Government, shall be appointed under a written contract which will contain such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the Statutes. In the circumstances what is laid down by the Statute shall determine the terms and conditions of the appointment. When Statute 30 (8) lays down that the services of a probationer cannot be terminated without the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, that shall also be a term and condition of the appointment and shall be binding on the parties. Similarly under Clause (h) of Section 20 of the Agra University Act, Statutes can be framed to lay down the conditions under which colleges and other institutions may -be admitted to the privileges of the University and be liable to the withdrawal of such privileges. Statute 30 (8) is contained under Chapter XVIII. Similarly under Clause (h) of Section 20 of the Agra University Act, Statutes can be framed to lay down the conditions under which colleges and other institutions may -be admitted to the privileges of the University and be liable to the withdrawal of such privileges. Statute 30 (8) is contained under Chapter XVIII. It hears the heading "Affiliation and Recognition of Colleges." 8. The underlying idea of the enactment and the Statute is that the appointment of Principals and teachers be on permanent basis and they be not at the mercy of the Management. When a probationer is also appointed on a permanent basis, the University can insist that services of a probationer be not terminated without the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. To maintain high standard of educational institutions. and also the independence of the Principal, the University can insist that the college shall not be affiliated to the University unless appointments are made in a manner that the Principal and the staff can act independently and to the interest of the institution and also of studying therein. 9. In view of the above, Statute 30 (8) 'can be said to be within the Statute making power conferred under the Agra University Act. Hence approval of the Vice-Chancellor is necessary before a resolution terminating the services of a probationer can become effective. 10. The Vice-Chancellor has in his order expressed his opinion on many of the points in issue. This Court is refraining from expressing any opinion on merits considering that the Vice-Chancellor shall have to himself consider the matter afresh. though from a somewhat different angle. However it appears necessary to observe, as was done earlier in respect of the Principal, that the Managing Committee not realise that once it decides to appoint a public servant or a retired public servant as the Head of the Institution, he cannot be expected to act in the same manner as any other person would. The public servant would like to follow the rules more rigidly than one who is promoted from among, the teachers. He may also insist that salaries be paid regularly before certain date. He may also have other ideas which one may call as fixed ideas. The public servant would like to follow the rules more rigidly than one who is promoted from among, the teachers. He may also insist that salaries be paid regularly before certain date. He may also have other ideas which one may call as fixed ideas. But what is necessary is that there should be a frank discussion between the Managing Committee and the Principal so that some via-media be found and thereby neither the principal compelled to act against his conscience nor the Managing Committee may find the atmosphere in the institution to be not proper. 11. With this few observations, I shall now give the reasons why it is necessary to remand the matter to the Vice-Chancellor. 12. In case of an award of punishment of dismissal or removal, or termination of service by way of punishment, the evidence has to be judged more rigorously than in the case of a simple termination of service. Material may not be sufficient to justify the grant of approval to the order of dismissal or removal but the same material may be enough to hold that a person is not suited for the post and the services of the probationer be terminated. 13. The High Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal and consequently it shall not be proper for this Court to form an opinion of its own on merits, to find out whether on the basis of the material the Vice-Chancellor should or should not have granted approval. This Court acts as a Court of correction leaving it open to the subordinate authority to act according to law. As it is not known what order the Vice-Chancellor may have passed if he was aware of the correct legal position, the proper thing for this Court shall be to quash the order of the Vice-Chancellor leaving it open to him to reconsider the matter. 14. Before parting with the case it must be observed that no rule of procedure can be laid down.in what manner the approval is to be granted or refused by the Vice-Chancellor. The grant or refusal of approval is not a mere formality and the Vice-Chancellor shall be at liberty to hold such enquiry as he may consider necessary. 14. Before parting with the case it must be observed that no rule of procedure can be laid down.in what manner the approval is to be granted or refused by the Vice-Chancellor. The grant or refusal of approval is not a mere formality and the Vice-Chancellor shall be at liberty to hold such enquiry as he may consider necessary. If he feels satisfied that without any enquiry he can pass an order say after perusal of the papers, what has to be ensured is that the interest of none of the parties are prejudiced and that a final order is passed after consideration of all the material facts. 15. The 'Writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned decision of the Vice-Chancellor communicated under the Registrar's letter, annexure XI to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. It is further directed that the Vice-Chancellor shall reconsider the matter in accordance with the law. It shall be proper for him to dispose of this matter as early as may be convenient. Costs easy. Stay order is vacated.