G.C.Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 and quashing the order of dismissal passed against him. Respondent No. 1 was Head Clerk in the Dhata Intermediate College, Fatehpur. The Management held an enquiry into certain charges against him and finding him guilty of the charges passed an or der on August 14, 1974, dismissing him from service. The Management submitted its proposal to dismiss the respondent No. 1 from service to the District Inspector of Schools for his approval. By order dated October 21, 1974, the District Inspector of Schools refused to grant the approval. Inspite of the refusal of approval of the District Ins pector of Schools, the Management maintained its order of dismissal against the respondent No. 1. He thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court.
(2.) THE appellant College is undoubtedly governed by the Interme diate Education Act, 1921. Though Section 16-G (3) of the Act pro vides that no Principal, Head Master or teacher may as discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments or served with notice of termina tion of service, except with the prior approval in writing of the District Inspector of Schools, there is no such provision in respect of clerks or Plead Clerks. Chapter III of the Regulations which deal with the condition of service also does not provide for the approval of the Inspector of Schools before the termination of the service of a clerk or Head Clerk. The only provision on which the respondent No. 1 relied was Rule 143(1) of the U.P. Education Code, the relevant portion of which reads thus: - "143. (1) No Head Master I Principal Teacher [Clerk, with whom the agreement to the prescribed form has not been executed, may be dismissed, removed, suspended or discharged from service, without the prior approval of Inspector|Inspectress." This rule certainly provides that a clerk shall not be dismissed from service, without the prior approval of the Inspector. The learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Manager, Shanta Hand Swatantra Bharat Inter College v. Kamla Rai (1) held that once the approval was refused by the Inspector, the order of dismissal automatically stood set aside and since the management did not file any appeal against the order of the Inspector, the Inspector's order became final and the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated. The objection of the Management that Kule 143 1972 A.L.J. 933, was not statutory was also repelled by the learned Single Judge on the basis of Kamla Rai's case. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of dis missal.
(3.) THE powers of Courts to grant a declaration to enforce a contract of personal service is very limited. In 17. P. State Warehousing Cor poration v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1244, the Supreme Court has laid down that such a declaration can be granted only in the following cases :- (i) where a public servant is dismissed from service in contra vention of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution; (ii) in cases of reinstatement of a dismissed workman under the Industrial Law by Labour or Industrial Tribunals; and (iii) where a statutory body has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation, imposed by some statute. The present case does not fall within the first two categories and can only fall within the third category, if the two conditions are satisfied, namely, that the dismissal order has been passed by a statutory au thority and the statutory authority has acted in violation of some statutory provision. ;