JUDGMENT : P.V. ASHA, J. 1. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the 2nd respondent by which the termination of services of the 1st respondent ordered by the petitioner as per Ext.P3 was interfered with and the petitioner was directed to reinstate her. 2. The 1st respondent was initially appointed as a Physical Education Teacher under the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order dated 10.05.2013. The conditions attached to her service were provided in Ext.P1 order of appointment issued by the petitioner to the 1st respondent on 10.05.2013. One of such conditions was that she would be appointed on probation from the date of her joining duty till 31.05.2014. Clause 3 of the order reads as follows: "3. Your appointment on probation will be effective from the date of your joining duty till 31.05.2014 and shall not be effective thereafter unless a fresh order is issued to that effect." Clause 6 provides that the period of probation can be extended at the discretion of the authorities of the petitioner and mere completion of the probationary period or period of extension thereof would not entitle her to automatic confirmation or implied confirmation. 3. Ext.P1 order of appointment will show that the selection and appointment of the 1st respondent was on the basis of an application submitted by her and on the basis of an interview in which the managing committee recommended her for appointment. By Ext.P2 letter dated 26.05.2014 the petitioner informed the 1st respondent that her probation has been extended for a further period of one year from 1.6.2014 to 14.5.2015. This was followed by Ext.P3 letter dated 23.5.2015 by which she was informed that her services would not be required w.e.f 15.5.2015 and she would cease to be a member of the petitioner from 15.5.2015. A cheque for a sum of Rs. 20,103/- was tendered along with this notice towards pay in lieu of notice period. The 1st respondent thereupon caused to issue a lawyer notice to the petitioner demanding refundable deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. In this lawyer notice it was stated that the 1st respondent was in her 5th month of pregnancy and she had participated in the physical education summer camp from 6.4.2015 to 4.5.2015 disregarding her physical condition and associated risks and this was known to the principal and her colleagues. 50,000/-. In this lawyer notice it was stated that the 1st respondent was in her 5th month of pregnancy and she had participated in the physical education summer camp from 6.4.2015 to 4.5.2015 disregarding her physical condition and associated risks and this was known to the principal and her colleagues. It was also stated that there was no bad feed back or remarks on her performance till that date; the order of termination issued on 23.5.2015, resulted in denial of opportunity to seek employment in another institution before the re-opening. The petitioner sent reply notice Ext.P5 stating that the 1st respondent was on probation and the termination of services was necessitated since her services were not found satisfactory. The 1st respondent thereafter approached the 2nd respondent with a complaint against her termination explaining the contributions she has tendered during her service career for the 2 year period and pointed out that the termination of her services was on account of her pregnancy. The 1st respondent thereupon approached this court in W.P. (C) No. 20009 of 2015 and this court by Ext.P8 judgment disposed of the same directing the 4th respondent to consider her representation Ext.P10 (Ext.P6 herein) after hearing the 1st respondent and the petitioner. On receipt of notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 statement before the 2nd respondent in which the petitioner submitted that they were receiving complaints from parents about the language which she used while communicating with the children and that they were not satisfied with the behaviour of the teacher, apart from her poor performance. However, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P9 order stating that the termination of her services was in violation of Rule 27.1 of the Affiliation Bye-laws of the Board, according to which the services can be terminated only during probation by giving one month's notice in writing or one month's pay including all allowances. The 2nd respondent found that the termination of services was not communicated to the 1st respondent before completion of the probation period of two years and it was only as per letter dated 23.5.2015 that the petitioner informed the teacher that her services would not be required w.e.f. 15.5.2015 i.e. at a time when the 2 years period was already completed. The Board therefore suggested the petitioner not to take such harsh decision against the teacher concerned and to reinstate her in service as Physical Education Teacher. 4. The Board therefore suggested the petitioner not to take such harsh decision against the teacher concerned and to reinstate her in service as Physical Education Teacher. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition at this stage challenging Ext.P9 order. The contention raised in the writ petition are that termination of service of the 1st respondent with respect to probation and confirmation are governed by the conditions in the bye-law of the petitioner institution of which the relevant provisions are as follows: "PROBATION (a) Except in case of purely temporary vacancy or leave vacancy or for a specific post of temporary nature, every employee shall on initial appointment be on probation for a period of one year from the date of his/her joining duties which may be extended by one year. (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx CONFIRMATION (a) On satisfactory completion of one year of probation, the employee may be confirmed, or his/her probation may be extended for a period not exceeding one year, if it is considered desirable or, if his/her services are not found suitable, his/her services may be terminated with one month's notice in writing or one month's salary including all permissible allowances but without any reason being assigned for such termination. However, the reasons for terminating an employee during probation shall be minuted in the meeting of the School Management Committee. (b) Provided that should there be any delay in the order of issue of the order of extension of the probationary period, termination of services or reversion to a lower post as the case may be, the probationer would not be deemed as confirmed in that post. (c) The employee shall be informed of his/her confirmation within three months of the completion of the probation period. Therefore, it was stated that even if the order of termination was not issued on the exact date of expiry of the period of probation, the petitioner cannot have any claim that she is a confirmed employee. The appointment of the 1st respondent was subject to these conditions as per clause 6 and the 1st respondent who accepted the termination, cannot be heard to contend that she was automatically confirmed. It is their further case that the termination of the services of the 1st respondent who was a probationer was on account of her poor performance. The appointment of the 1st respondent was subject to these conditions as per clause 6 and the 1st respondent who accepted the termination, cannot be heard to contend that she was automatically confirmed. It is their further case that the termination of the services of the 1st respondent who was a probationer was on account of her poor performance. It is their further case that the 2nd respondent has no authority to order specific performance of personal contract of service as per law and hence Ext.P9 order is without jurisdiction. 5. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that there is no statement as to whether her services were unsatisfactory and the sole reason for termination was the fact that she was in the 5th month of pregnancy so as to evade the legitimate benefits due to her. She explained her experience for the past 8 years in various schools and the awards conferred on her in various fields at University, State and National levels in various items. She pointed out that a student from Xth standard in the petitioner school secured selection to national level CBSE competition in shot-put, discuss throw and Javelin through, trained students for district meet and got prizes in various track and field events and several students got prizes in various items, such as selection in State Level Meet, securing 4th position in the Munshi Sports Meet etc. Their allegation was that she was using improper language. According to her, even if there was no successful completion of probation, the employer had a duty to inform the employee as required under clause 10 of the CBSE bye-laws to intimate the deficiencies in her. According to her, the sole reason is to take away the statutory entitlement to her on account of the pregnancy. 6. The 2nd respondent did not file any counter affidavit. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent defended their action on the basis of the provisions contained in its affiliation bye-laws. According to the 2nd respondent, it had interfered with the order of termination as it was called upon by Ext.P8 judgment, to take a decision on the representation submitted by the 1st respondent. It was also pointed out that the petitioner being an institution affiliated and recognised by the 2nd respondent is bound to follow the provisions contained in the bye-laws. 7. It was also pointed out that the petitioner being an institution affiliated and recognised by the 2nd respondent is bound to follow the provisions contained in the bye-laws. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 8. The order terminating the service of the 1st respondent was issued on a day when the 2 year period of probation was already over. According to the 2nd respondent, in the absence of any communication issued by the petitioner or received by the 1st respondent, before expiry of the period of probation/extended period of probation an order of termination could not have been passed because according to it the petitioner did not have any authority to take any action to terminate the services of the 1st respondent subsequent to the period of probation and treating her as one continuing on probation is illegal. The 2nd respondent has passed the order relying on the provisions contained in its affiliation bye-laws which provides for conditions of probation in clause 27. Clause 27 of the bye-law reads as follows: "PROBATION 1. Except in the case of a purely temporary vacancy or leave vacancy or for a specific post of temporary nature, every employee shall on initial appointment be on probation for a period of one year from the date of his/her joining the duties. The period of probation may be extended by the Managing Committee by a further period not exceeding one year. Services of an employee during probation may be terminated by the Managing Committee without assigning any reason by giving one month's notice in writing or one month's salary including all allowances. 2. If an employee desires to be relieved during the period of probation, it will be necessary for him to give one month's notice in writing or one month's salary including all allowances unless and otherwise the Managing Committee permits relaxation under special circumstances." 9. Clause 28 deals with confirmation. As per clause 28, an employee whose work and contract are found to be satisfactory during the period of probation, becomes eligible for confirmation on the expiry of the period of probation or extended period of probation with effect from the date of expiry of the said period. Clause 2 thereof provides that the employee should be informed of his confirmation within 3 months of the completion of probation period. Clause 2 thereof provides that the employee should be informed of his confirmation within 3 months of the completion of probation period. At the same time, sub clause 1 of clause 27 provides that the managing committee can terminate the services of an employee during probation without assigning any reason, giving one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice. According to the 2nd respondent, there is no provision for termination of services after the expiry of the period of probation. If at all the services are to be terminated, it should be after notice to the employee; termination can be effected only during the period of probation. Under the bye-laws there is no deemed extension; at the same time, it provides for a deemed confirmation in the absence of orders of extension. Therefore, the provisions in the bye-laws of the petitioner and that of the 2nd respondent are not similar. As far as the bye-laws of the petitioner is concerned, it is specific that the non-issuance of orders of confirmation will not amount to confirmation. In other words, the teacher would continue on probation until orders are passed either confirming her or terminating her services, even in the absence of formal orders of extension of probation. Therefore, termination simplicitor even after the extended period of probation will not confer any status or benefit to petitioner. 9. The petitioner challenges the order Ext.P9 on the ground that the 2nd respondent does not have any authority to interfere with the orders passed by the petitioner. According to it, the 2nd respondent is not an appellate authority in the matter of termination of services or in respect of any of the service conditions of the employees under the petitioner. Chapter II of the Affiliation Bye-laws of the 2nd respondent provides for the norms for affiliation. Clause 3 thereof provides for the conditions under which the educational institutions can be given affiliation. Sub-clause (ii) of clause 3 provides that conditions relating to the extent of land required for the functioning of a school, sub-clause (iv) of clause 3 provides that the school should have well qualified staff as per the norms of the board given in Chapter IX. Sub-clause (ii) of clause 3 provides that conditions relating to the extent of land required for the functioning of a school, sub-clause (iv) of clause 3 provides that the school should have well qualified staff as per the norms of the board given in Chapter IX. Sub clause (v) of Clause 3 provides that the school in India would pay salaries and admissible allowances to the staff not less than the corresponding categories of employees in the State Government schools or as per scales etc. prescribed by the Government of India. It further provides for the conditions to be fulfilled for provisional affiliation and thereafter for permanent affiliation, the infrastructure required, the quality of education etc. As a general qualification under clause (iii) under permanent affiliation it provides that besides fulfilling the other conditions the school must satisfy the following: (i) All admissions and withdrawal registers are properly maintained. (ii) The Service records of teaching and non-teaching staffs are duly maintained and updated. (iii) No teachers are appointed on ad-hoc basis. (iv) Teaching and non-teaching staff are appointed on prescribed pay scales and no staffs are appointed on consolidated pay. They are also paid DA & admissible other allowances as per Central or respective State Government rates." Sub-clause (ii) thereof provides that teachers shall not be appointed on adhoc basis. It further provides for quality of education. Some of the provisions under the head 'miscellaneous' provide that it is the responsibility of the school to ensure that it satisfies all the conditions laid down in the Affiliation Bye-Laws duly supported with documentary evidences in the prescribed formats. It further provides that the schools which are permanently affiliated will observe various "Dos" and "Don'ts" mentioned in Chapter II Bye-laws 3 of Affiliation Bye-laws and that of other conditions of affiliation of the Board will also be applicable mutatis-mutandis. Clause 10 provides for the staff and service conditions. Sub clause 3 under clause 10 provides that the school should have well defined conditions of service as per norms of State/U.T. Government and should issue letters of appointment to the employees at the time of joining service and also should sign a contract of service similar to the format given in Appendix-III in the Bye-laws. It further provides that the "period of probation should normally be one year extendable for another year. It further provides that the "period of probation should normally be one year extendable for another year. In case the management is not satisfied with the performance, the same should not be extended beyond 2 years and the management should arrive at a decision to confirm the teacher or not before the end of the probationary period." Clause 17 provides for the withdrawal of affiliation of provisionally affiliated schools. Under sub clause 2(a) (viii) absence of approved terms and conditions of service or frequent dismissal of teachers from service is one of the reasons for initiating proceedings for withdrawal of affiliation. Clause 18 provides for the withdrawal of permanent/regular affiliation. Under this clause, the Board can withdraw regular affiliation in case the school fails to observe affiliation norms and rules or the pass percentage in most of the subjects goes lower than the pass percentage of each subject and against the schools which are found guilty of the irregularities mentioned in clause 17 of Chapter II, or of non-observance of other applicable conditions relating to proceedings for withdrawal of permanent affiliation. 10. However, no provision is seen insisting approval from the 2nd respondent either for the bye-laws of the petitioner or for the action initiated against the employee. The provisions in the bye-laws of the 2nd respondent can only be found as directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the validity of termination should not have been tested in terms of the provisions in the bye-laws of the 2nd respondent. The consequence for not following the provisions of bye-laws of the 2nd respondent in proceedings for withdrawal of affiliation. There is no other provision to compel the petitioner to implement the "Dos" and "Don'ts." The ground on which the 2nd respondent interfered with the order of termination is therefore unsustainable. 11. The 2nd respondent did not look into any other aspects of the matter. When the case of the 1st respondent was that the motive behind the termination was to deny the statutory benefits towards maternity leave. No establishment can be permitted to terminate the services of a female employee on probation, on account of her pregnancy, under the guise of unsatisfactory service so as to deny her the statutory benefits towards maternity leave. When the case of the 1st respondent was that the motive behind the termination was to deny the statutory benefits towards maternity leave. No establishment can be permitted to terminate the services of a female employee on probation, on account of her pregnancy, under the guise of unsatisfactory service so as to deny her the statutory benefits towards maternity leave. The 2nd respondent ought to have included suitable provisions in its bye-laws to enable it to check such practices and to have supervisory powers over schools under it or else it should have exercised powers if any vested in it to check such practices/redress the grievances of such teachers. Under the above circumstances, in the absence of any such provision which requires either approval of the bye-laws of the petitioner or approval of either termination of service or punishment awarded to the employees, the order Ext.P9 passed by the 2nd respondent, can only be said to be illegal. Accordingly, Ext P9 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.