JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - Petitioner who is Head Master of Rukmani Devi Junior High School, Rupaidiha, District Bahraich, for short School, has directed this petition against the order dated 1-10-1988. Annexure 3, passed by the Manager of the School placing him under suspension on the charges specified in the order. 2. The main ground of challenge against the impugned order is that there is no provision for suspension and in any case there is no provision for payment of reduced emoluments during the suspension period. It is also the petitioner's case that the suspension order has not been approved by the District Basic Education Officer and, therefore, it is non est in the eye of law. Apart from these legal grounds it is alleged that Sri D.P. Agarwal who issued the suspension order was not the Manager of the School at the time the order was passed and, therefore, he was incompetent to suspend the petitioner. It is further stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner are factually incorrect. 3. The petition has been contested on behalf of the Management. On behalf of the Management it has been pleaded that the School is run by a private Society and it does not receive any grant-in-aid from the Government and, therefore, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against it. It is denied that there is no provision for suspension and payment of reduced emoluments. The factual dispute raised by the petitioner is controverted. Power to suspend and direct payment of subsistence allowance: 4. In view of the pleadings of the parties the main question that arises for consideration is whether there is power to suspend and to direct payment of subsistence allowance only instead of full salary during suspension period. 5. Basic education in the State of Uttar Pradesh is governed by the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 34 of 1972), for short Act. Under Section 19(2)(c) the State Government is competent to make rules for the recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed to the post of teacher other posts in Basic Schools recognised by the Board constituted under Section 3 of the Act. In exercise of this power the State Government has framed the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, for short 1978 Rules. In exercise of this power the State Government has framed the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, for short 1978 Rules. It is not disputed that the School in which the petitioner was appointed Head Master is a recognised Junior High School. Applicability of these Rules arises from the mere fact of recognition. It is not dependent upon payment of grant-in-aid or any other financial assistance by the Government to the School. Accordingly these Rules are applicable to the petitioner as well as the School. Rules 15 and 16 of these Rules are relevant and they read as follows: 15. Termination of service - No Headmaster or assistant teacher of a recognised school may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer. (Emphasised). 16. Disciplinary Proceeding. - In respect of disciplinary proceedings and the punishment to be inflicted in such proceedings a Head-master or assistant teacher as the case may be, of a recognised school shall be governed by the rules applicable to Headmaster and assistant teacher of a Basic School established or maintained by the Board. 6. In view of Rule 16 the Rules applicable to the Headmaster and teachers of a Basic School established or maintained by the Board in respect of disciplinary proceedings are applicable to such proceedings in respect of Headmaster or assistant teacher of a recognised Basic School also. The Rules framed in respect of disciplinary proceedings against Headmaster and assistant teacher of a Basic School established and maintained by the Board are designated as the Uttar Pradesh Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973, for short 1973 Rules. Rule 4 of these Rules deals with suspension. It reads as follows: Suspension - (1) A person against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or its proceedings may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry, in the discretion of the appointing authority. Rule 4 of these Rules deals with suspension. It reads as follows: Suspension - (1) A person against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or its proceedings may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry, in the discretion of the appointing authority. (2) An employee of the Board who is placed under suspension shall be granted subsistence allowance during his suspension period at such rate and subject to such rules as are applicable to a servant of the Uttar Pradesh Government, from time to time, and the said rule shall apply mutate mutandis to the employees of the Board. 7. In view of the above provision a Headmaster or assistant teacher of a recognised school can be placed under suspension during the pendency of inquiry against his conduct or in contemplation of such inquiry. Sub-rule (2) deals with grant of subsistence allowance. For this the Rules applicable to the State Government employees have been adopted. It is not disputed that a Government servant placed under suspension is not entitled to payment of his full salary during the period he remains under suspension but is entitled only to subsistence allowance fixed by the Government. Since Rules applicable to Government servants have been adopted the petitioner cannot claim payment of full amount of salary. He can get subsistence allowance at the rate fixed by the State Government for its employees. 8. In view of the provisions discussed hereinabove we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision under which the petitioner could be placed under suspension and directed to receive only subsistence allowance instead of full salary. Approval of District Basic Education Officer : 9. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the suspension order passed by the Manager required approval from the District Basic Education Officer. Rule 15 which has been reproduced hereinabove requires approval of the District Basic Education Officer in respect of the matters prescribed therein. One of the matters prescribed therein is "diminution in emoluments". Accordingly when an employee governed by the Rules is subjected to diminution in emoluments the order whereby diminution is directed requires approval from the District Basic Education Officer- It is undisputed that in view of the applicability of Rules governing Government servants the petitioner will not get full amount of salary but will get only the subsistence allowance. Accordingly when an employee governed by the Rules is subjected to diminution in emoluments the order whereby diminution is directed requires approval from the District Basic Education Officer- It is undisputed that in view of the applicability of Rules governing Government servants the petitioner will not get full amount of salary but will get only the subsistence allowance. Thus by the impugned order the petitioner is subjected to diminution in emoluments. In view of this diminution Rule 15 is attracted and the impugned order would require approval from the District Basic Education Officer. Admittedly such approval is not there. Accordingly the impugned order of suspension is violative of Rule 15 of the 1978 Rules and cannot, therefore, be sustained. 10. Learned counsel for the School, however, submitted that Rule 15 of 1978 Rules is general and does not specifically deal with suspension while Rule 4 of 1973 Rules deals specifically with suspension and, therefore, the specific rule will be applicable and not the general rule. The learned counsel relies upon the principle of interpretation that specific excludes the general. The legal proposition canvassed by the learned counsel cannot be doubted. However, that proposition will apply when there is conflict between the general and the specific rules. In the present case there is no conflict between Rule 15 of 1978 Rules and Rule 4 of 1973 Rules. Rule 4 confers power to suspend and to pay reduced emoluments. Rule 15 specifies the condition on which the power may be exercised, namely "with the prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer". Thus the two rules are not contradictory to each other but are complementary. Maintainability of Writ Petition: 11. It is undisputed that the School in question does not get grant-in-aid or any other financial assistance from the State Government However, as observed hereinabove applicability of the Rules framed under Section 19(2)(c) is not dependent upon the institution getting grant-in-aid or any other financial assistance from the Government. The mere recognition of the School by the Board is enough to entitle the Government to frame Rules under the said provision. Once the statutory Rule is applicable to the petitioner and the institution the petitioner's services are governed by the statutory provisions. If there is violation of a statutory provision by a private institution a writ petition can be maintained. Once the statutory Rule is applicable to the petitioner and the institution the petitioner's services are governed by the statutory provisions. If there is violation of a statutory provision by a private institution a writ petition can be maintained. Accordingly the writ petition cannot be thrown out on the ground of non-maintainability arising from the fact that it is a private institution which is not receiving financial assistance from the Government. In taking this view we are fortified by Full Bench decision of this Court in Aley Ahmad Abidi v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and others, MANU :UP/ 0141/ 1977MANU/ UP/ 0141/ 1977 : A.I.R. 1977 All 539. In this case relying upon the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V. Imanual A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1306, the Full Bench observed "even if the Committee of Management of a recognised Intermediate College is held to be a non-statutory body, such committee will still be amenable to the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court, where such Committee is entrusted with performance of statutory duties or concerned with statutory powers". When Rule 15 requires prior approval to be obtained for passing an order of the nature referred to therein it is obvious that a statutory duty is cast upon the Managing Committee of a private institution to obtain approval of the said officer prior to passing an order of suspension or any other order of the nature referred to in that Rule. 12. We may also usefully refer to the decision of their Lordships in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani and others (1989) 2 S.C.C. 691 . In this case writ petition was filed by a member of the academic staff whose services had been terminated by a trust which did not have statutory origin. The trust resisted the writ petition on the ground that it was not a statutory body and, therefore, it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The plea of the trust was negatived with the following observations made in Paragraph 20 of the Report: The term 'authority' used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. The plea of the trust was negatived with the following observations made in Paragraph 20 of the Report: The term 'authority' used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words 'any person or authority' used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied. 13. The duty cast upon the Management to obtain approval is a statutory duty and, therefore, a public duty. Non-observance of this public duty, in view of the above judgment, renders the Committee of Management amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14. In view of the above we are unable to uphold the objection of the learned counsel for the Management that the writ petition is not maintainable. 15. In view of the findings recorded on the above issues it is not necessary to consider the factual disputes raised by the parties. 16. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of suspension dated 1-10-1988. Annexure 3, passed by the Manager of Rukmani Devi, Junior High School, Rupaidiha, district Bahraich, is hereby quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs from opposite parties 2 and 3.