ORDER Gur Sharan Lal, J. - Kumari Prem Lata Misra filed this writ petition on 6-11-1970 as an assistant teacher (under suspension) in the Basic section of Colvin Taluqdar's College, Lucknow. She had been working as such since July, 1961. There was some trouble between her and the Principal or the other teachers and the matter went up before the Managing Committee as well. The petitioner received the communication enclosed to the petition as Annexure 13 from Sri Sripat, Commissioner, Lucknow Division (Opposite Party No. 1 to the petition) who is said to be the President of the Managing Committee of the College informing the petitioner that she would be suspended with effect from 20-6-1970 and that a charge-sheet containing charges would follow in due course. This communication is dated August 13/19, 1970. She ultimately filed the writ petition as aforesaid, praying for quashing by the issue of writ of certiorari the suspension order and also for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to pay her full salary and emoluments and to allow her to function as an assistant teacher. Her services were terminated by the Managing Committee as communicated to by the principal through Annexure 16 dated 7/17th November, 1970. The petitioner thereupon got the writ petition amended and added certain paragraphs therein as also the further relief of quashing the order of termination of her services contained in Annexure 16 and for the payment of her full salary and emoluments till the decision of the writ Petition. 2. In the writ petition she has arrayed as Opposite Parties Shri Sripat, President of the Managing Committee of the College, Shri H. L. Dutt, Principal of the Colvin Taluqdar's College, Smt. M. Seely, Head Mistress of Basic Section of the College, and the Committee of Management of the College. Originally she had arrayed as Opposite Party No. 1 the Colvin Taluqdar's College itself but when she amended the writ petition she got the College deleted from the array of Opposite Parties. 3. On the petition coming up for hearing a preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties and it was decided to hear the learned counsel for parties on that preliminary objection first. The objection is twofold. 3. On the petition coming up for hearing a preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties and it was decided to hear the learned counsel for parties on that preliminary objection first. The objection is twofold. The first part is to the effect that the petition is not maintainable in the absence of impleadment of Colvin Talusdars College which is the registered society and with which the Opposite Parties are said to be connected. The second part is that the writ petition is not maintainable because the Opposite Parties do not function under any statutory provisions nor are they public bodies. It may be stated here that Shri Sripat has been impleaded not as Commissioner of the Lucknow Division, but as President of the Managing Committee of the College, which office he no doubt occupies by reason of his being a Commissioner. He is the person who passed, or at any rate communicated, the order of her suspension through Annexure 13. Opposite Party No. 2, the Principal and Opposite Party No. 3, the Head Mistress, had been impleaded in their personal capacities, and the Managing Committee has been newly impleaded because of the order of termination having been passed in pursuance of its decision. 4. As to the first part of the objection raised, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties has contended that the petitioner was an employee of Colvin Taluqdar's College which is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act. The Committee not being a juristic person cannot be sued by itself and the College is a necessary party. On behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand, it has been contended that the Committee of Management comes under the definition of the word `person' given in the General Clauses Act 1897 and a writ petition can, therefore, be filed against it. Person has been defined in clause 42 of Section 5 of the said Act to include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The General Clauses Act applies to the interpretation of the Constitution of India under Art. 367 of the Constitution of India unless the context otherwise requires. Person has been defined in clause 42 of Section 5 of the said Act to include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The General Clauses Act applies to the interpretation of the Constitution of India under Art. 367 of the Constitution of India unless the context otherwise requires. Under Article 226 of the Constitution every High Court shall, have power throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of certiorari for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. It will thus appear that a writ petition can be filed even against an unincorporated body of persons. This has been held already in some cases by this Court. Two of them have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and they may be mentioned. One is the decision in Writ Petition No. 498 of 1967 decided on 14-1-1969 by Lakshmi Prasad, J. and the other is in Writ Petn. No. 712 of 1969 decided on 10-9-1970 by G. D. Sahgal, J. It will appear that the order of suspension was passed by the President of the Managing Committee and the order for termination of the services of the petitioner has been passed by the Managing Committee. The purpose of the petitioner can be served by the issue of writs in the nature of certiorari or mandamus to those persons and in that view of the matter the impleadment of Colvin Taluqdar's College is not necessary. The first part of the objection is therefore overruled and it is decided that the writ petition is not bad for want of impleadment of the College itself as the registered Society with which the petitioner was employed. 5. The first part of the objection is therefore overruled and it is decided that the writ petition is not bad for want of impleadment of the College itself as the registered Society with which the petitioner was employed. 5. Coming to the second point, namely, that none of the Opposite Parties is any public authority and none of them was functioning under any statutory provisions in making the impugned orders, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Opposite Party No. 4, the Committee of Management of the Colvin Taluqdar's College, is functioning under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder and the writ petition, therefore, lies against Opposite Party No. 4 and also Opposite Party No. 1, the President of the Managing Committee, who is also said to be functioning similarly. The writ is directed to be issued against Opposite Parties 1 and 4 and, therefore, it is immaterial that Opposite Parties 2 and 3 are neither public bodies nor are functioning under any statutory provisions. 6. It is of course not the case of the petitioner that Opposite Party No. 4 is any public authority. The argument on behalf of the Opposite Parties, on the other hand, is that it is only matter relating to clauses 9th to 12th of the College, including matters relating to the teachers of those classes which are regulated by the Intermediate Education Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. The petitioner was however admittedly appointed to and working in the Basic Section of the College. Their further case is that that Section is not even recognised by the Government and no aid from Government has been taken for running the Basic Section of the College. According to this argument the Managing Committee in dealing with the affairs of the Basic Section including matters relating to teachers of those sections does not function under the Intermediate Education Act and Rules and Regulations made thereunder, and therefore, in so far as it dealt with the case of the petitioner it was not functioning under any statutory' provisions. The whole controversy, therefore, centres in the fact whether in dealing with the matters of the Basic Section the Managing Committee of the Colvin Taluqdar's College is required to function under the Intermediate Education Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. 7. The whole controversy, therefore, centres in the fact whether in dealing with the matters of the Basic Section the Managing Committee of the Colvin Taluqdar's College is required to function under the Intermediate Education Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. 7. The preamble of the aforesaid Act shows that the Act was passed to establish a Board to take the place of the Allahabad University in regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate Education in Uttar Pradesh, and to prescribe courses therefor. The contents of the Act also nowhere indicate expressly that it purports to regulate anything in regard to the teaching of classes below the 9th class. It is not in dispute that there may be an institution which runs only classes 9th to 12th. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that there is an institution which has lower classes also in addition to classes 9th to 12th or even 9th and 10th, then the affairs of such an institution as a whole wall be regulated by the provisions of the Act and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. It is not possible to uphold this contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision in the Act and the Rules and Regulations which expressly deal with any matter relating to the teaching or teachers or management of classes below the 9th class. He has referred me to the provisions in Regulations Nos. 17 and 18 framed under the Act and wants it to be inferred therefrom that those Regulations deal with the teachers employed to teach lower classes as well. Now Regulation 17 lays down nothing more than that in filling vacancies for the posts of teachers in a grade, one-third to one-half will be filled by promotion from the grade. In fact, even a higher percentage may be filled in that manner if eligible candidates possessing good qualifications, meritorious record and integrity are available. Under Regulation 18 it is stated that teachers with five years' continuous substantive service in an institution in the C.T. or J.B.T.C. (trained under-graduate and L.T. trained graduate), grades will be eligible for promotion to the next higher grade (trained Graduate and Intermediate class teacher's grade, respectively), provided they possess the minimum academic qualifications prescribed for the grade. Under Regulation 18 it is stated that teachers with five years' continuous substantive service in an institution in the C.T. or J.B.T.C. (trained under-graduate and L.T. trained graduate), grades will be eligible for promotion to the next higher grade (trained Graduate and Intermediate class teacher's grade, respectively), provided they possess the minimum academic qualifications prescribed for the grade. Learned counsel states that the C.T. and J.B.T.C. grades are only for teachers who teach below 9th class. These two Regulations, however, appear only to recognise the fact that there are institutions which have also lower classes besides having 9th and 10th or 9th to 12th classes and in making provision to enable teachers teaching classes below the 9th class to be promoted to the grades of teachers meant for teaching the 9th and higher classes, these Regulations do not in any manner deal with the conditions of service or manner of appointment of teachers teaching classes below the 9th class. Annexure A to the Regulations lays down the minimum qualifications for Principal, Head Master and teachers in recognised Higher Secondary Schools. The word `Recognition' has been defined in Section 2, clause (d) of the Act to mean recognition for the purpose of preparing candidates for admission to the Board's Examination and the word 'institution' has been defined in Cl. (2) (b) of the same section to mean the whole of an institution or part thereof, as the case may be. As already stated, the Act is concerned with prescribing courses for High School and Intermediate Examinations in Uttar Pradesh and with regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate education. Therefore, where an institution imparts education not only for High School and Intermediate Examinations but also to lower classes, then the use of the word `institution' may under the definition relate to the part of the institution. So the minimum qualifications laid down in Appendix A may relate to the qualifications only for teachers teaching High School and Intermediate courses. Actually, on a perusal of the Appendix it will be found that qualifications, so far as teachers are concerned, have been laid down therein only for teachers teaching in classes 9th to 12th and not in the lower classes. Actually, on a perusal of the Appendix it will be found that qualifications, so far as teachers are concerned, have been laid down therein only for teachers teaching in classes 9th to 12th and not in the lower classes. Regulation 17 obviously therefore, refers to filling vacancies in the posts of teachers of classes 9th to 12th and provides for one-third to one-half of the vacancies in a grade being filled by pro motion from a lower grade of teachers. There may be even those teaching the 9th or 10th class and not necessarily classes below the 9th class in all cases. Having regard to the provisions of Regulation 19 a teacher in lower grade teaching classes below the 9th class will also be eligible for promotion to the next higher grade of teachers teaching classes 9th to 12th. Appendix A does not lay down any qualifications for appointment of teachers in lower classes. I may also state that even for teachers of classes 11th and 12th, C.T. or B.S.T.C. is an approved qualification, vide item No. 11 of the Appendix. Similarly, for 9th and 10 classes, C.T. or S.T.C. is an approved qualification and Regulation 15, therefore, cannot be said to be confined to teachers of lower classes, but may include teachers who are covered by item No. 11 of the Appendix. It is accordingly held that in an institution recognised for preparing candidates for admission to the Board's Examinations the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder shall govern the management, appointments and dismissal of teachers of High School and Intermediate classes only, and the said provisions are not concerned with regulating the education and conditions of service, etc., of teachers of lower classes. The Act requires that there shall be a scheme of administration in an institution which is recognised under the Act and that there shall be a Committee of Management under the scheme. In so far as the Act and Rules and Regulations thereunder lay down any requirements in respect of teachers, etc. The Committee of Management will no doubt function in accordance with the statutory provisions. There is, however, no basis for the argument that even when the Committee of Management of an institution deals with the affairs of the lower classes it will be functioning under the Intermediate Education Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. The Committee of Management will no doubt function in accordance with the statutory provisions. There is, however, no basis for the argument that even when the Committee of Management of an institution deals with the affairs of the lower classes it will be functioning under the Intermediate Education Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. The same body may function in two capacities. It may in respect of matters relating to the High School and Intermediate classes function as the Managing Committee contemplated by the Intermediate Education Act and while acting in regard to the lower classes it may function as nothing more than the governing body of the registered Society. The Societies Registration Act, 1860, only requires that a Society which wants to get itself registered under the Act shall have a Memorandum of Association in which will be contained also the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee or other governing body to whom, by the rules of the Society the management of its affairs is entrusted. But the Act nowhere purports to regulate the functioning of the governor, council, etc. The Management Committee of the Colvin Taluqdars' College cannot, therefore, be regarded while dealing with the appointments and removal of teachers to be functioning as a statutory body regulated by the Societies Registration Act. 8. The Educational Code of Uttar Pradesh codifies the rules, orders, etc., relating to educational institutions. It is not by itself any statutory Code though it may reproduce or mention statutory provisions contained elsewhere. In clause (x) of para 1 therein "Institution" has been defined to mean an educational institution and institution has been divided into two classes "recognised institution and unrecognised institution". "Recognised Institution" has been defined to mean an institution which imparts the course of instruction prescribed or recognised by the Department or the Intermediate Board or University and satisfies one or more of these authorities, as the case may be, in the matter of efficiency. The case Department, i.e., the Education Department can also, therefore, prescribe courses of instruction for institutions which may prepare students for examinations conducted by the Department. If in respect of institutions providing education for classes below the 9th class there are many requirements laid down by the Department, they would be only non-statutory requirements. The case Department, i.e., the Education Department can also, therefore, prescribe courses of instruction for institutions which may prepare students for examinations conducted by the Department. If in respect of institutions providing education for classes below the 9th class there are many requirements laid down by the Department, they would be only non-statutory requirements. Learned counsel, therefore, has not attempted to point out any statutory provision regulating the functioning of the Managing Committee of an institution in respect of matters relating to classes lower than class 9th. 9. On the basis of the above discussion it is held that the Committee of Management of Colvin Taluqdar's College does not function under any statutory provisions in dealing with the imparting of education and employing and removing teachers for classes below the 9th class. The case of the Basic Section is also covered therein. In fact the learned counsel for the opposite parties has further given out without any contradiction on petitioner's behalf that the Basic Section is not receiving any grant from the Government and is therefore not: bound in any respect even by any orders of the Government in managing the affairs relating to the Basic Section of the College. The petitioner on her own averments in the petition was appointed in the Basic Section of the College (vide para 4 of the writ petition). She has continued in that very section and is not a teacher of the High School and Intermediate classes. Accordingly the writ petition cannot be maintained against the Committee of Management, Opposite Party No. 4 in respect of its act in removing from service the petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite party has cited a decision of this Court in Babu Ram Gupta v. U.P. Sahkari Ganna Samiti Sangh (1971 All LJ 840) and a decision of Travancore-Cochin in Dr. C.F. Papali v. University of Travancore (A.I.R. 1957 Trav-Co 46) to support his contention. A Full Bench decision of Jammu and Kashmir has also been cited. Aftab Ram v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (A.I.R. 1970 J and K 152), which takes even a more strict view in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Dr. Bool Chand v. Chancellor, Kurukshetra University (A.I.R. 1966 SC 292), but I do not see how this decision is of any help to him. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Dr. Bool Chand v. Chancellor, Kurukshetra University (A.I.R. 1966 SC 292), but I do not see how this decision is of any help to him. 10. In the result the petition is dismissed on the preliminary objection but I make no order as to costs.