JUDGMENT - G.H. GUTTAL, J.:---In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Bombay University and College Teachers' Union impugns the constitutional validity of sub-rule (2) of Rule 42 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules-the Rules for short made under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1978 hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The petitioners have stated in the petition that their Organisation is wedded to protect the interest of junior and senior college teachers and that the impugned Rule affects teachers all over Maharashtra. They also make a grievance that Rule 42 makes it impossible for the members of the petitioners-Union to contest election to any public body without seeking permission from the Management and that all elections to Corporation, Zilla Parishad, and Gram Panchayat etc. are due to be held in the very near future. They apprehend that powers under the said Rule are likely to be abused and the members of the Union are, thereby, likely to be subjected to unfair discrimination. The petitioners-Union, as an organized Association, has filed this petition in the interest of its members, generally, who are likely to face hostile discrimination in the exercise of powers by the Managements of different institutions. Although, therefore, the petition is not directed against any particular action of the Management of a particular institution, nor any specific cause of action has been pleaded, yet having regard to its representative character, we have heard it on merits. Moreover, the respondent No. 2 Maharashtra Rajya Shikshan Sanstha Sanchalay Sangh Mahamandal, has been joined to the petition making the representative character broad based. Such a petition can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particular as violation of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India is complained of. Hence was proceed to examine the merits of the case. 3. The points have been urged: (i) Sub-rule (2) of Rule 42 in so far as it requires teachers to secure "previous permission of the Management in writing" for contesting elections to public offices, other than University Senate and the Maharashtra Legislative Council, leaves uncontrolled and unguided discretion in the Management in the matter of granting such permission to teachers and, therefore, is violative of the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) The provisions in the aforesaid rule requiring previous permission from the Management for contesting elections is ultra vires of the rule making power of the State Government. 4. It will we useful to understand certain provisions of the Act and the Rules relevant for considering the two points. The object of the Act is two fold. Firstly, to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of employees in certain private schools in the State with a view to providing such employees security and stability of service consistent with their duties towards the pupils and the institutions. Secondly to further the public interest by laying down the duties and functions of the employees of the schools in order to ensure their accountability to the Management and improve the standard of education (Preamble). "Management" in relation to a school means, in the case of a school administered by the Government, the Department of Government and, in the case of a school administered by a local authority, the local authority. However, there are schools run by individual/s or bodies of individuals. In respect of such schools, Management means the person or body of person administering the schools [Section 2(12)] of the Act. Employees, including teachers, are governed by the Act and the Rules which provide for the Code of Conduct the violation of which renders the teacher liable to disciplinary action [Section 4(2) of the Act]. There is specific provision against an employee working in a private school from working in any coaching class. The breach of this provision entails termination of service [Section 4(5) of the Act]. Having provided for the broad legal frame-work for enforcing discipline, section 16 empowers the State Government to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The subjects on which the State Government may frame rules are not exhaustive because these subjects have been set out "without prejudice to the generality" of the power to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 16 contains a specific power to make rules in regard to "the duties of such employees and Code of Conduct and disciplinary matters". The Rules make elaborate provision in respect of appointment, qualifications, seniority, pay-scales and so on. Some of the Rules need a reference. Clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 16 contains a specific power to make rules in regard to "the duties of such employees and Code of Conduct and disciplinary matters". The Rules make elaborate provision in respect of appointment, qualifications, seniority, pay-scales and so on. Some of the Rules need a reference. The duties and the Code of Conduct laid down in Rule 22 preclude a teacher from accepting part-time employment 'without obtaining prior written permission from the authorities of the schools'1 Rule 22(2)(g). An elaborate catalogue of duties of teachers is found in Schedule I to the Rules. Schedule I is made under Rule 22(1)2 Schedule I Clause (4) "Duties of a teacher". Teachers includes the Head of a School3 Section 2(26) and also the Assistant Head of the School. In the context of this fact, the difference in the duties of the Head, Assistant Head and teacher who are all teachers, assume significance in relation to the power to grant the permission to contest election to public offices. 5. The Management, no doubt, is empowered to grant or withhold permission to a teacher. If the rule made in exercise of statutory power under section 16 of the Act leaves in the Management the power to pick and choose teachers for granting permission without providing definite guiding principles or standard for such selection, the rule is discriminatory, as it leaves open the doors for arbitrary choice. Equality and arbitrariness cannot go together, for they are antithetic to each other. (E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another)1, A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 555; (Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others)2, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1628; (Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of Indian and another)3, A.I.R. 1978 Supreme Court 597. Arbitrariness which is negation of equality may characterise not only the law which creates the authority but also the exercise of the authority under such law. If, however, the Act or the Rules indicate the policy which inspired it but leaves the selective application of the rule to the discretion of the Management to be made according to the stated policy, there is no contravention of the right to equality. Discretion, by itself, is not discriminatory if the legislative policy guides the exercise of discretion. 6. The question then is where do you look for the principles which should guide the exercise of the discretion ? Discretion, by itself, is not discriminatory if the legislative policy guides the exercise of discretion. 6. The question then is where do you look for the principles which should guide the exercise of the discretion ? There are well known principles, judicially recognised. For instance, if the discretion is vested in a high authority or in the Government itself, as opposed to a minor official the power may not be arbitrary. (Matajog Dobey v. Bhari)4, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 44. Again if the law provides safeguards against the improper exercise of discretion, such as provision for appeal, the Rule may not be violative of Article 14. (M/s. Sukhwinder Pal and others v. State of Punjab others)5, A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 65. The policy of the Act and the rules in regard to the grant of permission may be gathered from the preamble, the objects of the law and other provisions of law. It is important that the standard or the guidelines provided by the law should be certain and not vague; for, vague and uncertain guide is no guide at all. (P. Balakotaiah v. Union of India)6, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 232. 7. Against the background of these principles of law which should inform us in considering whether the impugned provision of Rule 42 offends the guarantee of equality, we will proceed to examine the preamble and the general provisions of law and search for the guidelines. 8. The impugned rule requires permission in writing for contesting elections other than the election to University Senate or the Maharashtra Legislative Council. If the teachers desires to contest election for the Senate of the University or the legislative Council, previous permission is not necessary; intimation that teachers desires to contest is enough. The legislature has distinguished the elections to the Senate of the University and the legislative Council from elections to other public offices and has provided that the teachers who contest elections to either class of public office are subject to certain restrictions, such as proceeding on leave after nomination and tendering registration if elected1 Sub-rules (3) to (6) of Rule 42. The question is whether the requirement of previous permission of the Management in writing does not confer unguided and uncontrolled power in the Management to grant permission to some and refuse to others. The question is whether the requirement of previous permission of the Management in writing does not confer unguided and uncontrolled power in the Management to grant permission to some and refuse to others. The objects set out in the preamble do not furnish any direction to the exercise of discretion to choose a particular teacher or class of teachers for grant of permission. The general words like "accountable to the Management", "improving standard of education" and so on, are no guidelines at all. All teachers are accountable to the Management and there is no guideline which enables the Management to make a rational choice. No doubt, the authority to grant permission is vested in the management. In the case of schools run by the Government or the local authorities, the power to grant permission is vested in an organised body like the Department of the Government or the Local authority whose sense or responsibility and fairness may be trusted. But all schools to which the Act applies are not run by the Government or the local bodies. As the definition of "Management" itself reveals, the Act and the rules are created to regulate the schools run by private individuals also. The Department of the Government, the Local authority or the individual managers are not such high authorities as to ensure safeguard against arbitrariness. Therefore, the fact that the permission is required to be granted by the Management does not, by itself, guarantee that there will not be arbitrary choice of teachers. There is a variety of teaches distinguished by the subjects taught by and the duties entrusted to them. These teaches work in the primary, secondary and higher secondary division. The teachers for technical, multi-purpose and vocational High Schools are another class of teachers. Then the Assistant Head and Head of a school are also teachers. But they perform administrative duties. Naturally they are different from the teachers who merely teach. The duties of the teachers, Assistant Head and Head who are all teachers by the definition1. Section 2(26) of the Act. "Teacher" means a member of the teaching staff and includes the Head of a school. have been distinctly and elaborately catalogued. Consider the functional differences between teachers. The teachers in technical subjects may belong to groups like Electronics group, chemical plant, operation group, agricultural or food technology2. Schedule B of the Rules. Section 2(26) of the Act. "Teacher" means a member of the teaching staff and includes the Head of a school. have been distinctly and elaborately catalogued. Consider the functional differences between teachers. The teachers in technical subjects may belong to groups like Electronics group, chemical plant, operation group, agricultural or food technology2. Schedule B of the Rules. The Assistant Head and Head may be administratively indispensable to the school. The administrative compulsions, paucity of teachers for a particular subject, age and experiences have not been stipulated as the criteria to be considered by the Management. This leaves the Management free to permit a teacher to contest the election without regard to any principle or guideline. The choice is thus, arbitrary. The words like "public interest", "interest of education" which would indicate guidelines are altogether absent. Similarly, there is no provision of appeal against the refusal to grant permission. Thus the legislature has not indicated any policy, principle or guideline according to which the Management should grant permission. The discretion to decide who is fit to receive the permission from the Management is so wide and unguided that it permits the Management to pick and choose teachers with an uneven hand. The discretion conferred on the Management is arbitrary and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. We, therefore, strike down as unconstitutional the stipulation in sub-rule (2) of Rule 42 which enables the employees to contest elections to public offices other than the University Senate and the Maharashtra Legislative Council only "with the previous permission of the Management in writing". The rest of the rule which enables an employee to contest elections to such public offices is valid. What is invalid is the stipulation "with the provisions permission of the Management in writing." 10. The submission referred to at (ii) in paragraph 2 above has no merit. As already stated Clause (e) of section 16 empowers the State Government to frame rules governing "disciplinary matters". The question is whether sub-rule (2) of Rule 42 provides for a disciplinary matter. 11. The impugned rule seeks to regulate the conduct of the teachers who are subject to disciplinary control of the Management. The requirement of previous permission of the Management in writing is intended to ensure that the teachers give their time to the school and that the Management should exercise control through the grant of permission. 11. The impugned rule seeks to regulate the conduct of the teachers who are subject to disciplinary control of the Management. The requirement of previous permission of the Management in writing is intended to ensure that the teachers give their time to the school and that the Management should exercise control through the grant of permission. The need to seek permission of the Management on the one hand and the public interest in teacher's participation in public life on the other hand, are sought to be balanced by providing for permission before contesting elections. The word "discipline" is used in different senses depending upon the context in which it is used. The word used in Rue 16 is not "discipline" but "disciplinary matters". The words "disciplinary matters" are wide enough to embrace all aspects of teacher's behaviour related to his employment. In a narrow sense, discipline of an employee means subjecting him to the orders or superiors and enforcing his obedience to those orders, attention to the performance of the assigned duties and so on. The word "discipline" used in section 16(e) cannot be read in a narrow sense to mean attendance, obedience to the orders, punctuality, good conduct and so on. It extends to a wide range of aspects of the behaviour of employees. Discipline involves more than mere obedience to lawful orders. It is a wide concept which embraces the authority of the Management to enforce the continued performance of the duty as a teachers while allowing the teacher to serve the public by occupying public office through elections. The need of permission of the Management for contesting elections to public offices is a "disciplinary matter" within the meaning of Clause (e) of Rule 16 and is therefore within the rule making power of the State Government. It is not ultra vires to the rule making power of the Government. 12. In the view which we have taken about the constitutional validity of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 42 set out in paragraph 9 above the petition will have to be allowed. Accordingly, we allow the petition in terms of prayer (a). Rule is made absolute with costs. Petition allowed. -----