I. P. VASISHTH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing her dismissal orders dated 25. 8. 1998 as corrected by the subsequent order dated 27. 8. 1998 respectively contained in Annexures-9 and 10. ( 2 ) THE gist of the matter is that the petitioner took up the job as a Junior High School Teacher in an institution run under the management of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at Gurunanak Vidyalaya. Sultanpur--on the representation that she had done her Intermediate and then attained ten years teaching experience, thus straitlng the necessity of having the B. T. C. qualification. At a later stage, the management doubted her claim of teaching experience and as such issued her a show cause notice which was duly replied by her. The management did not feel satisfied with her explanation and issued further notices which too were duly replied by her. But despite all that, under the impugned orders her services were terminated without issuing any charge-sheet or holding a formal disciplinary enquiry. From her view point, the impugned orders are violative of the principles of natural justice and as such void ab initio. ( 3 ) DURING the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner was fair enough to concede that the respondents institution is a minority institution, but the burden of his arguments was that even a minority institution is required to comply with the Regulations framed by the State government in the interest of "discipline, health, sanitation and public order" as observed by the apex Court in the matter of Bihar State M. E. B. v. Managing Committee M. H. A. , 1990 UJ (SC) 470 and mandated by Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 framed by virtue of Section 19 clause (1) of the U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Support was also drawn from the observations recorded by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2083 (S/s) of 1992. Mohd. Moharram v. D. I. O. S. , decided on 9. 4. 1992. ( 4 ) THE limited point for consideration before this Court is as to whether in case of a minority institution the aforesaid statutory rules and regulations have any relevance. Mohd. Moharram v. D. I. O. S. , decided on 9. 4. 1992. ( 4 ) THE limited point for consideration before this Court is as to whether in case of a minority institution the aforesaid statutory rules and regulations have any relevance. A bare perusal of the proviso to Rule 15 of the aforesaid rules would leave no manner of doubt that they have no application to the minority institutions. In the case of Mohd. Moharram, the learned Judge was dealing with a situation covered under Section 16g of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which does not have a proviso of the like nature. Obviously any reliance thereon is thoroughly misconceived. ( 5 ) IN so far as the ratio of the Bihar State M. E. B. v. Managing Committee M. H. A. (supra) is concerned, that has to be taken into consideration in the totality of the situation because the learned Judges therein were primarily dealing with the constitution of the Board of Management. The obiter was of course there that in the matters of discipline, health, sanitation and public order, the State Government may frame certain rules and regulations for the better and efficient management of the institution, but in the Instant case, no such rules and regulations could be brought to the notice of the Court which might fall in the line with the ratio of the cited case. ( 6 ) AS indicated hereinbefore, prior to the passing of the impugned orders, the petitioner was asked to explain her qualifications not once but on three different occasions. Her endeavour of seeking exemption from the B. T. C. training on the basis of ten years teaching experience was under clouds because on the purported projection, she could only be a student of Intermediate at the time when she was shown to be a regularly employed teacher in some other institution. Since no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming, therefore, the management was fully within its rights and competence to dispense with her services and since it was enjoying the protection of a minority institution which did not oblige it to go through the drill of a formal disciplinary enquiry, therefore, it was not imperative for 11 to serve the petitioner with a formal charge-sheet. ( 7 ) NO good case to intervene in the writ petition. Hence dismissed. .