JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - These two writ petitions are interlinked and can be desposed of by a single judgment. 2. Sri Nath Education Society, Sirsa, district Allahabad runs and manages Lala Laxmi Narain Degree College, Sirsa, Allahabad. In due course, Dr. A.P. Srivastava was, after obtaining approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the Kanpur University, appointed as Principal of the Laxmi Narain Degree College. He was placed on probation for one year with effect from September 3, 1977. It appears that on or about September 2, 1978, the Managing Committee extended his period or probation by one year. Relations between the Managing Committee and Principal appear to have become strained. A meeting of the Managing Committee was convened to consider the question whether Dr. A.P. Srivastava be confirmed or not. One P.C. Srivastava, a lecturer in the college, filed a suit (No. 763 of 1979) in the Court of Munsif, Allahabad for an injunction, claiming that the Managing Committee was not validly constituted and its resolutions were void. An interim injunction was granted by the learned munsif restraining the Managing Committee from giving effect to it resolutions. Soon after Dr. A.P. Sirivastava, the Principal, also filed a suit (No. 811 of 1979) in the court munsif. A similar interim injunction was granted in this suit as well. This litigation went on. Ac one stage the interim injunction was vacated. During that time the Managing Committee met on October 15, 1979 and passed a resolution terminating the services of the Principal (Dr. A.P. Srivastava) and appointing one G.D. Dwivedi to officiate as the Principal. The interim injunctions were again passed and ultimately the matter came up' to the High Court in writ petition (Nos. 19273 and 10274 of 1979). These petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge and were allowed The interim injunctions granted in the two suits were quashed by a judgment dated April 7, 1980. 3. On April 8, 1980 the Managing Committee through the manager addressed a communication to the Vice-Chancellor, Kanpur University, intimating of the resolution dated October 15, 1979 and saying that in the case of a probationary principal of Degree College, the management is empowered to terminate his services under Section 31 (2) of the U.P. State Universities Act and the Vice-Chancellors approval was not required. It added that, however, if the Vice-Chancellor feels that it is necessary an opportunity of explaining may be afforded before passing necessary orders. 4. At this stage on April 14, 1980 Dr. A.P. Srivastava, the Principal, filed writ petition (No. 3123 of 1980) in this Court, for an order directing the Managing Committee not to restrain the petitioner from functioning as Principal of the College. It appears that the manager addressed another letter to the Vice-Chancellor on September 7, 1980. The Registrar, Kanpur University, on September 27, 1980, informed the manager that the management is net empowered to terminate the services of a probationary principal under Section 31 (3) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. Under Section 35 (2) every such decision has to be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and cannot take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor. Since the management has taken an arbitrary action in terminating the services of the principal without taking prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor, it cannot be given effect to. The management was directed to treat Dr. A.P. Srivastava as a principal and allow him to act as such. The University will not recognise any other person as principal. The management filed writ petition No. 105 of 1S80 to challenge the decision of the Vice-Chancellor conveyed through the Registrars letter dated November 27, 1980. 5. Learned counsel for the Principal, submitted that the Managing Committee had no power to terminate the services of the principal without first obtaining the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. Learned counsel appearing for the Managing Committee, on the ether hand, submitted that on October 15, 1979 when the Managing Committee terminated the services of the principal, the college was not affiliated to the Kanpur University. It was a private institution. Its Managing Committee was a private body. It was not bound by the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. It was hence not necessary to obtain; the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. A writ petition was not maintainable to enforce a personal contract of service. It was also contended that the Vice-Chancellors order conveyed through the Registrar was invalid because no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the committee. 6. The central question in these writ petitions is whether the college was and is affiliated to the Kanpur University so as to be bound by the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. 7. It was also contended that the Vice-Chancellors order conveyed through the Registrar was invalid because no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the committee. 6. The central question in these writ petitions is whether the college was and is affiliated to the Kanpur University so as to be bound by the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. 7. According to the statements made by counsel during the course of hearing, it appears that the Managing Committee made an application to the Kanpur University for affiliation somewhere in 1971 or so. It was granted provisional affiliation from time to time. The provisional affiliation was by an order dated May 9, 1979 passed by the Chancellor, granted upto June 30, 1979. Subsequently the provisional affiliation was extended till June 30, 1980. That is apparent from the communication made by the secretary to the Chancellor dated December 20, 1980. It is thus apparent that this institution is provisionally affiliated to the Kanpur University till now; The affidavit filed on behalf of the Kanpur University and the statements Made by Mr. Bhalla, learned counsel for the University, show that the B.A. Examinations of the students of Sirsa College are going on and are being conducted under the supervision and control of Kanpur University. Mr. Bhalla stated that the provisional affiliation was extended till the session 1980 concluded. The B.A. Examination held for the Sirsa College students in the year 1980 was cancelled on account of mass copying and. they could not be held earlier than July, 1981. and the examinations are still going on. For that reason the provisional affiliation of the college is still in operation. 8. Learned counsel for the Managing Committee, however, argued that the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 does not postulate either a temporary or provisional affiliation. In any event, it does not permit extension of such affiliation from time to time The extension of affiliations was hence invalid. In the next place, the procedure for affiliation provided in the Act has not been followed. 9. We find no merit in these submissions. Under Section 37 (2), the Executive Council admits a college to the privileges of affiliation. The Executive Council can do so with the previous sanction of the Chancellor. It admits a college which fulfils the conditions of affiliation. There is no dispute that previously the affiliation was granted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Under Section 37 (2), the Executive Council admits a college to the privileges of affiliation. The Executive Council can do so with the previous sanction of the Chancellor. It admits a college which fulfils the conditions of affiliation. There is no dispute that previously the affiliation was granted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. the dispute is about the extension after June, 1979. From the communication dated March 22, 1980 from the Vice-Chancellor to the Chancel for it appears that the Executive Council of the University passed a resolution on February 3, 1980 that the affiliation of Laxmi Narain Degree College Sirsa, be extended till June 1980. The communication requested the Chancellor to grant his approval to the aforesaid proposal. Thereupon it appears that the Chancellor approved the proposal and the same was conveyed to the Vice-Chancellor on December 20, 1980. There was hence no procedural defect in the extension. 10. Section 37 speaks of affiliated Colleges. Sub-section (2) contemplates admission of a College to the privileges of affiliation. It does not prescribe or prohibit provisional affiliation. It appears that the college had not fulfilled all the requisite conditions of affiliation, and for that reason it was being granted provisional affiliation in some subjects only At present the position appears to be that some teacher of the University had been nominated to inspect the college and report about the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. That inspection is still on and for that reason a regular affiliation has not yet been accorded. Mr. Bhalla, learned counsel for the University, has produced the record pointed out that the management has been corresponding with the University and requesting inspection. On July 5, 1980, the manager of the college addressed a letter to the Vice Chancellor asking the address of Dr. R.D. Tewari, a visiting Professor of the Kanpur University so that the management may contact him and get the inspection done. The same day. the manager addressed a letter to Dr. R.D. Tewari also to fix date for inspection. The management of the College never took up the plea with the University that it did not want affiliation or that its affiliation should no longer be extended. On the other hand, it was anxious to be affiliated. The same day. the manager addressed a letter to Dr. R.D. Tewari also to fix date for inspection. The management of the College never took up the plea with the University that it did not want affiliation or that its affiliation should no longer be extended. On the other hand, it was anxious to be affiliated. This is apparent from the aforesaid letter of the manager in respect of the inspection and also the fact that it has sent boys of its college to appear at the B.A. Examination of the University. The examinations are currently going on. In thus situation, it does not lie in the mouth of the Managing Committee to plead here that the college is not affiliated to the Kanpur University. 11. Learned counsel for the Managing Committee stressed that the managing committee was a private and not a statutory body, Dr. A.P. Srivastava is not entitled to a declaration that he was continuing in service as principal because the order of termination was invalid for lack of its approval by the Vice-Chancellor. In support, he relied upon Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Laksmi Narain, AIR 1976 SC 888 and Smt. J. Tiwari v. Smt. Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir, (1979) 4 SCC 160 . 12. In Vaish Degree College, it was held that a society which was running an educational institution would be a non-statutory body even though it was in certain respects governed by statutory provisions like the U.P. Universities Act. In order to be a statutory body it should be either created by a statute or under a statute. In the present case it was not dispute that Sri Nath Education Society which runs the Sirsa College has neither been created by or under any statute. It is a private body. Against it, a contract of service like that of a principal, or teacher cannot, in the absence of special features, be enforced specifically by a court of law even though the order of termination of service may be unlawful because it has not obtained the prior approval of the Vice Chancellor. The same view expressed in Smt. J. Tiwari. So far the submission is justified. 13. The same view expressed in Smt. J. Tiwari. So far the submission is justified. 13. As to the pendency of the civil suits where similar reliefs are claimed, learned counsel for the Principal stated that the civil suit filed by C.P. Srivastava has been dismissed while the principal has made an application in his suit that the same be allowed to be withdrawn and orders on that appeal .cation are expected to be passed any day. We are hence inclined to dismiss the writ petition filed by Sri Srivastava on this ground. 14. But this does not end the matter. The manager of the college had himself addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor on or about April 8, 1980 stating that the managing committee has passed a resolution terminating the services of Dr. A.P. Srivastava and appointing Sri G.D. Dwivedi to act as the officiating principal. In the end it was stated that in case it was considered that the approval of the Vice-Chancellor was needed an opportunity of hearing may be granted. 15. The resolution of the managing committee terminating the services of Dr. A.P. Srivastava was clear and categorical. It terminated his services and appointed Sri G.D. Dwivedi to act in his place as officiating principal. The case of the managing committee itself is that this resolution was communicated to Dr. A.P. Srivastava telegraphically and also by a registered letter. If it evident that the resolution of the managing committee was not a proposal to the Vice-Chancellor. It was a categorical decision which was attempted to be made effective immediately. In the aforesaid letter the manager stated that in the opinion of the managing committee the approval of the Vice-Chancellor was not necessary. In substance, the manager only communicated the decision of the managing committee to the Vice-Chancellor. 16. Thereafter the manager appears to have addressed another letter to the Vice-Chancellor dated September 7, 1980 by way of reminder. 17. We have already held above that the college was affiliated to Kanpur University. The provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act were hence applicable to it. 16. Thereafter the manager appears to have addressed another letter to the Vice-Chancellor dated September 7, 1980 by way of reminder. 17. We have already held above that the college was affiliated to Kanpur University. The provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act were hence applicable to it. Section 35 (2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 provides : - "(2) Every decision of tire management of such college to dismiss or remove a teacher or to reduce him in rank or to punish him in any other manner shall before it is communicated to him, be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor." Sub-section (3) of Section 45 says : "(3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply to any decision to terminate the services of a teacher, whether by way of punishment or otherwise, but shall not apply to any termination of service on the expiry of the period for which the teacher was appointed." 17-A. Sub-section (18) of Section 2 defines a teacher "to mean a person employed for imparting instruction or guiding or conducting research in the University or in an institute or in a constituent, affiliated or associated college and includes a Principal or a Director." 18. Thus the term "teacher"includes a principal. So sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 35 equally apply to the case of a principal. Under subsection (3) of Section 35, the provisions of sub-section (2) apply to any decision to terminate the services of a teacher whether by way of punishment or otherwise. Evidently, the provisions of sub-section (2) are applicable to the terminations of the services of a principal during or at the end of his probationary period. 19. Under sub-section (2), the decision of the management to terminate the services of a principal has to be reported to the Vice-Chancellor before it is communicated to the principal and such a decision shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor. 20. In the present case the management decided on October 15, 1979 to-terminate the services of the principal. It forthwith communicated the decision to the principal. It sought to effectuate the decision by appointing Sri G.D. Dwivedi to act as the officiating principal. 21. 20. In the present case the management decided on October 15, 1979 to-terminate the services of the principal. It forthwith communicated the decision to the principal. It sought to effectuate the decision by appointing Sri G.D. Dwivedi to act as the officiating principal. 21. The management contravened Section 25 (2) by communicated its decision to the principal and seeking to make it effective before reporting the decision to the Vice-Chancellor. Under that provision, such a decision Could not take effect In law at that time because it-had not Been approved by the Vice-Chancellor. 22. The management did not resolve that its decision will,take effect lifter it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor. The Manager in his communication to the Vice-Chancellor stated that in the opinion of, the managing committee the decision to terminate the services of a probationary principal did not require the. approval of " the Vice-Chancellor. It is evident that the managing committee took categorical decision and took steps to effectuate it itself without obtaining the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. In this situation, the order of the Vice-Chancellor say that the resolution of the managing committee was ineffective and illegal cannot be held to be, in any manner, unlawful. This decision of the Vice-Chancellor was plainly correct in law. 23. It is true that in its comments to the Vice-Chancellor, the manger requested for an opportunity of hearing before passing orders in case it was considered that his approval was required. The letter did not purport to be the proposal of the management to terminate the services for approval of the Vice-Chancellor. It did not request the Vice-Chancellors approval. It merely made a vague request for an opportunity of hearing. 24. In P.C. Bagla (Post-Graduate) College v. Vice-Chancellor, Agra University, 1980 (6) ALR 413 : 1980 UPLBEC 119 (FB) a Furl Bench of our Court has held that a probationary teacher is not under the general law entitled to an opportunity of hearing before his services are terminated. This decision would apply with greater force to the Management which seeks to terminate the services of a probationer. The management was not, as of right, entitled to an opportunity of hearing. It cannot hence plead that since the Vice-Chancellor did not afford them an opportunity of hearing, the order dated November 27, 1980 was illegal. 25. This decision would apply with greater force to the Management which seeks to terminate the services of a probationer. The management was not, as of right, entitled to an opportunity of hearing. It cannot hence plead that since the Vice-Chancellor did not afford them an opportunity of hearing, the order dated November 27, 1980 was illegal. 25. It is true that when the principal fired the writ petition on April 14, 1980 the Vice-Chancellors order was not in existence. At this stage it could well be said that he was not entitled to specific performance of the contract of service as a principal but during the pendency of that writ petition, the Vice-Chancellors order had. come in operation. That order declares that the resolution of the managing committee was fruitless and invalid. The Vice-Chancellor was entitled to say so. The Vice-Chancellors order is not, in any manner illegal. In this situation, it will not be right for this Court to dismiss the writ petition filed by the principal. On the other hand, the proper thing would be to say that the Vice-Chancellors order is operative between the parties and under it the termination of the services of the probationary principal was unlawful and also was the resolution to appoint Sn G.D. Dwivedi as the officiating principal. In substance, the position was that according to the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. A.P. Srivastava was the only person who could be recognised as the principal of the college. The order of the Vice-Chancellor, is in our opinion, enforceable and operative between the parties. In the circumstances the principal is entitled; to a declaration that he continues to be the lawful principal of the college. 26. In the result, 'he writ petition filed by the principal is partly allowed and it is held that he is at present the lawful principal of the college entitled to continue as such. The petition filed by the Manager has ho merits and is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties may bear their own costs in both the cases.