JUDGMENT - D.R. DHANUKA, J.:---The petitioner is the sole Trustee and Manager of the Bosary Church School which is a Public Trust duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The said school is a minority educational institution. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated the 29th August 1988 passed by the Education Officer of Bombay, Municipal Corporation, directing the management to restore the status-quo by reinstating the respondent No. 3 to her original post and hold proper enquiry as more particularly set out therein. On 19th September 1988 this petition was admitted and interim injunction was granted in terms of prayers (b) and (c) of the petition hereby the operation of the impugned order dated 29th August 1988 was stayed and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were restrained from taking any further action in pursuance of the other above referred impugned order. 3. The petitioner has filed an affidavit of service proving that the rule-nisi issued by this Court in this petition was duly served on the respondent No. 3 by registered post with acknowledgement due on 7th October 1988. No affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 was served personally. No one is appearing for respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 is not present in Court. 4. The facts and circumstances pleading to filing of this petition are as under :- a) The 3rd respondent was working as Head-mistress of the Primary Section of the school known as "rosary High School", prior to passing of the impugned order by the management reducing her in rank from the Head-mistress to the Assistant Teacher. The said Primary Section is governed by the Grant-in-aid Code formulated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. b) On 11th January, 1984, there was an altercation between the 3rd respondent and another teacher named Mrs. Lily, Carasco in the Staff Room. The petitioner has averred in para 3 of the petition that the 3rd respondent threw bananas at the said another teacher Mrs. Carasco, flung a wooden duster at her, pulled her hair and slapped her, which incident was witnessed by several other teachers of his School. The petitioner has also averred in para 2 of the petition that due to commotion created the students came out the classes and witnessed the incident. Carasco, flung a wooden duster at her, pulled her hair and slapped her, which incident was witnessed by several other teachers of his School. The petitioner has also averred in para 2 of the petition that due to commotion created the students came out the classes and witnessed the incident. It is further averred that in the interest of maintaining the discipline among the members of the staff, it was decided to hold an inquiry against the respondent No. 3. These allegations have remained uncontraverted. 5. It is the case of the management that the enquiry officer was appointed. A charge sheet was served on the 3rd respondent on 4th April, 1984 in respect of the said incident. It is further the case of the management that enquiry officer found that the allegation made against the respondent No. 3 were duly proved. 6. The Enquiry Officer recommended that the 3rd respondent be reduced in rank to the post of the Assistant Teacher with effect from 1st January 1985. It appears that the enquiry officer also found that one another teacher Mrs. Lily Carasco was also responsible for speaking of the incident and she was also liable to be punished for her misconduct. It was also recommended that annual increment of the said teacher be withheld for a period of 6 months from the annual increment. The management accepted the said recommendations and passed the necessary orders in that behalf. 7. The respondent No. 3 and the said Mrs. Carasco filed criminal cases against each other. It is not necessary to refer to the details of these criminal cases in this judgment. 8. The respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal under section 9(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, challenging communication dated 13th October, 1984 forwarded by the Management to the respondent No. 3 to the effect that the respondent No. 3 was reduced in rank from the post of the headmistress of the said Rosary Church School to that of the Assistant Teacher with effect from January 1985. By an order dated 27th December 1984, the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal held that the said appeal was not maintainable as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal. By an order dated 27th December 1984, the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal held that the said appeal was not maintainable as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the said appeal. The Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal took the said view as the respondent No. 3 was Head-Mistress of the Primary Section of the high School, the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 is not applicable to the Primary School. 9. Thereafter the Education Officer of Bombay Municipal Corporation appeared to have been approached by the 3rd respondent. On 6th November 1985 Superintendent. Aided School, addressed a letter to the Manager of Rosary High School calling upon the management to give explanation within 10 days as according to the Education Officer the Management had not followed the procedure as per Grant-in-aid Code and had not appointed enquiry committee. It was also stated in the said letter that the matter in dispute appeared to be one of minor quarrel. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation to the Superintendent of Aided School by his letter dated 19th December 1985. It was further pointed out in the said letter that the provisions of Rules 11 to 22 of Appendix VII of the Grant-in-aid Code merely provided for intervention in case of termination of the services of the teacher and the said Rules were therefore, not applicable at all in the situation when the teacher was merely reduced in rank. It was also stated in the said letter that by charge-sheet dated 4th April 1984, the 3rd respondent had been called upon to tender her explanation to he charges set out therein and no separate show cause notice was required to be issued to respondent No. 3 in the matter. It was further stated in the said letter that the Head-mistress had physically assaulted another teacher in the presence of the staff which could not be considered as a minor quarrel. Reference was also made in the said letter to the Article 30 of the Constitution of India. After correspondence exchanged in the matter, the Education Officer addressed her letter dated 3rd October 1986 to the advocate for the 3rd respondent. Reference was also made in the said letter to the Article 30 of the Constitution of India. After correspondence exchanged in the matter, the Education Officer addressed her letter dated 3rd October 1986 to the advocate for the 3rd respondent. It was stated in the said letter that the management had taken action against the respondent No. 3 by reducing her in rank without proper enquiry and the petitioner shall have to reinstate respondent No. 3 to her original post of Head-mistress within 15 days from the receipt of the said communication. The petitioner protested against the said letter. The Education Officer granted personal hearing to the management in this behalf on 13th October 1986 and ultimately passed the impugned order dated 29th August 1988. 10. Mr. Menezes learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the "Grant-in-Aid-Code" framed by teh Bombay municipal Corporation. Appendix VII to the said Code, prescribed terms and conditions of the services for teacher in recognised and aided Primary Schools in Greater Bombay. Rule 11 and Rule 14 of the Appendix VII provides prescribed procedure for termination of services of the peramanent teachers Rule 19 of the said rule provides in all cases in which termination of services was resorted to after enquiry, the findings of the enquiry and the reasons for the termination of the services shall have to be recorded and the copy thereof sent to the Department and to the teacher concerned within a week. Rule 20 of the said Rules enables the teacher to make an appeal to the Education Officer, Primary Education Department against the order of termination of service. Under Rules 15 and 18 of the Grant-in-Aid Code, the appeal is required to be filed within 15 days. No appeal could be filed under the said rule against order of reduction in rank. No other rule is to be found in the Code for an appeal against the order of reduction in rank. The Education Officer appears to have passed the impugned order in purported exercise of her powers to decide the appeal under Rule 20 of the said Rules it is obvious that Rule 20 of the said Rule is not at all applicable. The Education Officer appears to have passed the impugned order in purported exercise of her powers to decide the appeal under Rule 20 of the said Rules it is obvious that Rule 20 of the said Rule is not at all applicable. In my judgment, the Education Officer could not give the directions for reinstatement of the respondent No. 3 to her original post and set aside the order of reduction in rank passed by the management. In any event there was no justification for passing the impugned order. 11. Mr. Murti, learned Counsel for the Corporation in all fairness states that there appears to be no provision in the Code other than Rule 20 for setting aside the impugned order of punishment. Power to set aside the order of reduction in rank cannot be applied by authority. 12. Mr. Murti has however pointed out that the Education Officer was entitled to issue certain directions under Rule 21 of the said Rules. It is pointed out that the School authority failed to carry out all the directions of the Education Officer. The Education Officer has no general power to issue any directions to the Management. Powers to issue directions must also be backed by some provisions binding on the management. Since the directions issued by the Education Officer to reinstate the third respondent to her original post amount to setting aside the order of reduction in rank without their being any provision in the Code in that behalf, such a direction is illegal. The management is bound to follow only such directions which are lawful. The incident pointed out and in which the 3rd respondent was involved was far too serious and cannot be considered as a minor quarrel. In the circumstances, the impugned order Exhibit M to the petition, is set aside and the Rule is made absolute. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----