JUDGMENT S.N. Dwivedi, J. - Kulbhaskar Ashram Degree College is affiliated to the University of Kanpur. S. N. Awasthi, the appellant, was appointed as a lecturer of Animal Husbandary and Dairying in the College on probation for one year. The appointment was made by an order dated October 31, 1967. The appellant joined service on November 8, 1967. The period of probation was extended by one year. On October 1, 1969 the Principal wrote to the appellant a letter informing that the College has decided "not to confirm (you) in the post". The letter goes on to state that the period of the appellant's probation would "no more be required with effect from November 8, 1969". He was directed to hand over the charge to the head of his Department. On October 9, 1969, a meeting of the committee of the Management of the College was held. Resolution No. 3 which was passed by the committee related to the appellant. The resolution states that "in view of the adverse report of the Head of the Department concerned against Sri Awasthi, and the recommendation of the Principal, he should not be confirmed in his post from 8-11-1969, the date on which his probationary period expires". From November 8, 1969, the appellant was not allowed to work as lecturer in the College. So he filed a writ petition in this Court. Unfortunately for him, no one appeared on his behalf on the date of the hearing of his writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 2. Counsel for the appellant has raised three points before us. Firstly, it is stated that the order of the Principal dated October 10, 1969 and the resolution of the committee of management of the College dated October 9, 1969 in effect terminated his services without prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the Kanpur University; secondly, the resolution was passed in contravention of the provisions of Statute 11.07 (10) of the Statutes of the Kanpur University as the meeting was not attended by two-third of the total membership of the committee and the resolution was not passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of its members present and voting, and thirdly the order and the resolution were passed malafide. 3. 3. For a decision of the first point it is necessary to notice certain provisions of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965 under which the University of Kanpur has been constituted. Sec. 26 (1) provides that teachers of affiliated colleges shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-sec. (4), be appointed by the Management "in the manner prescribed." Sub-sec. (2) of Section 26 provides that every teacher appointed under Sub-sec. (1) shall, in the first instance, be on probation for such period as may be prescribed. It further provides that a teacher of an affiliated college "shall not be confirmed except by the order of the Management after considering the report of the principal and the senior most teacher of the subject." Sub-sec. (4) is not material in this case. Sec. 28 (1) provides that every teacher in an affiliated college 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 copy thereof shall be furnished to the Management and the teacher concerned. Sub-sec. (2) of Section 28 provides that "any dispute arising out of a contract referred to in Sub-sec. (1) between an affiliated college and any teacher thereof shall be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration consisting of one member nominated by the Management, one member nominated by the teacher concerned and an umpire appointed by the Vice-Chancellor." The decision of the Tribunal shall be final. All the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, shall, subject to the provisions contained in the Act, apply to such reference. Sub-sec. (3) provides that every decision by the Management of an affiliated college "to dismiss or remove service" a teacher shall be reported forthwith to the Vice-Chancellor and, subject to the provisions contained in the Statutes, shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor. Sec. 30 provides for the making of Statutes under the Act. It says that subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes may provide for "any matter relating to the University." It also enumerates certain specific matters on which Statutes may be made. Clause (q) is material for our purposes. It reads : "all other matters which are required by this Act, to be provided for the Statutes." Sec. 2 (k) defines the word `prescribed'. It means prescribed by the Statutes. Clause (q) is material for our purposes. It reads : "all other matters which are required by this Act, to be provided for the Statutes." Sec. 2 (k) defines the word `prescribed'. It means prescribed by the Statutes. These are the material provisions of the Act. 4. Acting under Section 30, the Statute making authority has made certain Statutes for the University of Kanpur. They are called the "First Statutes of Kanpur University." Chapter VI of the Statutes deals with teachers. Statute 6.06 (a) provides that every teacher appointed under Section 26 (1) shall be on probation for a period of one year in the first instance. Clause (b) of the said Statute provides that the Management may in its discretion extend the period of probation by one year. Clause (c) reads :- "The Management may at the end of period of probation (including the extended period, if any) , confirm the teacher after considering the reports mentioned in Section 26 (2) (b)" Clause (d) reads : "The Management may, before or at the end of the period of probation (including the extended period, if any) terminate the services of a teacher of the College if his work or conduct is not considered satisfactory; Provided that prior permission of the Vice-Chancellor shall be necessary." Statute 11.06 provides that where a written contract has not been executed between a teacher and the Institution, the mutual obligations of the parties "shall be the same as if the prescribed contract had been executed." Statute 11.07 (7) provides that in the case of a teacher who is appointed on probation, his services may be terminated only by giving at least one month's notice in writing or by paying to the teacher a sum equivalent to one month's basic salary. It contains a proviso to the effect that the termination shall not take effect except with the previous approval of the Vice-Chancellor. Statute 11.07 (8) provides that in the case of a teacher on probation, if by the end of the period of probation no notice of termination from service as provided for in Statute 11.07 (7) is given to the teacher, he shall be confirmed in his appointment after considering the report of the Principal and the senior most teacher of the subject. These are all material provisions of the Statute for purposes of this case. 5. These are all material provisions of the Statute for purposes of this case. 5. It may now be observed that the impugned order and the impugned resolution do not expressly state that the services of the appellant were being terminated. Both of them state that he would not be confirmed and that accordingly his services would not be required with effect from November 8, 1969. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, however, is that the order and the resolution in effect terminate the services of the appellant. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the order and the resolution state only that the appellant would not be confirmed on the post. According to him, they do not expressly or by necessary implication terminate the services of the appellant. 6. What is the effect of the order and the resolution is to be examined in the context of the Statutes which we have quoted earlier. Statute 6.06 envisages a twofold scheme in regard to a teacher appointed on probation. If at the end of the period of probation the Management is satisfied on considering the reports mentioned in Section 26 (2) (b) about the work and conduct of the teacher, it may confirm the teacher. If, however, the Management is not satisfied with the work and conduct of the teacher, either before or at the end of the period of probation, it may terminate the services of the teacher with the prior permission of the Vice-Chancellor. It appears from the scheme of Statute 6.06 that besides these two courses open to the Management no third course is open to it. It may either confirm the teacher or terminate his services. The Statute does not envisage the automatic cessation of the services of a teacher on the expiry of the period of his probation. Statutes 11.07 (7) and (8) also seem to support our interpretation of Statute 6.06. 7. In the light of this interpretation of Statute 6.06 we are of opinion that the order and the resolution in effect terminated the services of the appellant. It is admitted by the respondents that the appellant's services were terminated without prior permission of the Vice-Chancellor of the Kanpur University. So the order and the resolution have been made in contravention of Statute 6.06 (d). They are accordingly invalid. 8. It is admitted by the respondents that the appellant's services were terminated without prior permission of the Vice-Chancellor of the Kanpur University. So the order and the resolution have been made in contravention of Statute 6.06 (d). They are accordingly invalid. 8. Counsel for the respondent has urged that the proviso to Statute 6.06 (d) is ultra vires the Statute making authority. Sec. 30 of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965, as already stated, deals with the making of the Statutes. We have already quoted clause (q) of Sec. 30. Clause (q) enables the Statute making authority to make Statutes in relation to all matters which are required by the Act to be provided for by the Statutes. Sec. 28 (1) provides that every teacher in an affiliated college shall be appointed under a written contract which shall contain such terms and conditions as may be `prescribed.' "Prescribed" means prescribed by Statutes. So Section 30 (q) and 28 conjointly enable the Statute making authority to set out the terms and conditions of service of a teacher. That the services of a teacher shall not be terminated without the prior approval of the Vice Chancellor, is a term of service admits of little doubt. So the proviso to Statute 6.06 (d) can be enacted under Section 30 (q) read with Sec. 28. 9. Counsel for the respondent, however, has submitted that proviso to Statute 6.06 (d) conflicts with Section 28 (3) . Sec. 28 (3) provides that every decision by the Management of an affiliated college to dismiss or remove from service a teacher shall be reported forthwith to the Vice-Chancellor and, subject to the provisions contained in the Statutes, shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor. We are unable to read any inconsistency between the proviso to Statute 6.06 (d) and Section 28 (3) . It seems to us that Section 28 (3) is confined to dismissal and removal from service of a teacher. Dismissal and removal from service seem to be associated with the idea of punishment and will not govern a case of termination of service of a teacher appointed on probation. 10. It seems to us that Section 28 (3) is confined to dismissal and removal from service of a teacher. Dismissal and removal from service seem to be associated with the idea of punishment and will not govern a case of termination of service of a teacher appointed on probation. 10. Assuming that the words "dismissed or removed from service" in Section 28 (3) are comprehensive enough to include the case of termination of service of a teacher appointed on probation, it still seems to us that there is no inconsistency between the proviso to Statute. 6.06 (d) and Section 28 (3) . Sec. 28 (3) requires prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the University before any effect is given to the order of dismissal or removal from service. So does the proviso to Statute 6.06 (d) . 11. The provisions of Sec. 16-G (3) (a) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulation II framed under Sec. 16-G have a close resemblance to the provisions of the Kanpur University Act, and the Statutes made thereunder which we have reproduced earlier. Orders resembling the order passed in this case were made in two cases under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act by the Management of certain Colleges, (See Beulah Cutting v. The Chairman., Board of High School and Intermediate Education. U.P. Allahabad, 1966 A.L.J. 587 and Municipal Board Bareilly v. B.K. Malhotra, 1968 A.L.J. 1127, and in both these cases this Court has held that the orders amounted to termination of the service of a teacher on probation and that as they were made without the prior approval of the specified statutory authority, they were invalid. These decisions lend support to the argument of the appellant on the first point. 12. In view of our decision on the first point in favour of the appellant, we do not think it necessary to decide the other two points urged by him. 13. Counsel for the respondents has urged that Section 28 clearly indicates that the terms and conditions specified in the Statutes are made part of the contract between the teacher and the College. He says that accordingly the terms and conditions are contractual and cannot be enforced in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. We do not agree with this contention. He says that accordingly the terms and conditions are contractual and cannot be enforced in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. We do not agree with this contention. Those terms and conditions which are specified in the Statutes and are compulsorily incorporated in the contract do not owe their original to the Statute. They are accordingly legislative in character and may be enforced in writ proceedings, (see Managing Committee of Merrut College, Meerut v. Dr. V. Puri, 1969 A.L.J. 612. 14. Another argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is based on Section 28 (2) . Sec. 28 (2) provides that any dispute arising out of a contract referred to in Sub-sec. (1) of Section 28 between an affiliated College and the teacher thereof shall be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration. It further provides that the decision of the Tribunal shall be final. The argument is that the Act and the Statutes create a right as well as provide a remedy for the enforcement of that right and so all other remedies open to a teacher or to a College are by necessary implication excluded. This argument is manifestly untenable. No legislative law can take away the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The State legislature cannot be assumed to have amended Article 226 of the Constitution for it has no power to do so. 15. It is then stated that in all events this Court should not exercise discretion for interference for the appellant has an adequate alternative remedy under Section 28 (2) . We are diffident to accept this argument at this stage. This preliminary objection does not appear to have been raised before the learned Single Judge. No doubt the petition was dismissed on merits, but it was open to the respondents to raise this preliminary objection and obtain the dismissal of the writ petition in limine. The learned Single Judge exercised his discretion in entertaining the petition and hearing the arguments on merits. Secondly the order and the resolution which are impugned before us are plainly and palpably violative of the statutory provisions. Having regard to the plain and palpable violation of the statutory provisions, we think this Court should not relegate the appellant to the alternative remedy of arbitration at this stage. 16. Secondly the order and the resolution which are impugned before us are plainly and palpably violative of the statutory provisions. Having regard to the plain and palpable violation of the statutory provisions, we think this Court should not relegate the appellant to the alternative remedy of arbitration at this stage. 16. We allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The order of the principal dated October 1, 1969 and the resolution of the Committee of Management dated October 9, 1969 are quashed. The appellant shall get his costs as well in the writ petition.