Sivaraman Nair, J.
1. This appeal arises from the judgment in W.P. No. 7412/92. Petitioner is the appellant. She assailed her transfer 'on religious grounds' from the posts of Principal & Correspondent of St. Ann's Degree and Post Graduate Colleges and Correspondent of St. Ann's Junior College for Girls, Mehdipatnam to the Generalate of St.Ann's Society at Guntur. The transfer was made by the 7th respondent who is the Superior General of the Society of St. Ann, Guntur. She replaced the petitioner by appointing respondent No. 5 as the Correspondent of the three colleges and as Principal of the Degree College and Post Graduate Centre and the 6th respondent as Principal of the Junior College. Petitioner assailed the order as devoid of jurisdiction, vitiated by malafides and as violative of the principles of natural justice. Those grounds did not appeal to the learned single judge. He therefore dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal.
2. The pleadings in this appeal are voluminous. The rival contentions of parties have traversed a wide area. Fortunately, however, the main contestants before us viz., petitioner on the one hand and respondents 5, 6 and 7 on the other, have tried to narrow down the controversy. The peripheral issues which have taken up a lot of space have been relagated to the background as they should be. We are therefore concerned in this appeal only with three questions:
(A) Whether the 7th respondent had power and jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner from her post as Principal and Correspondent of the Colleges, conducted by the St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam?
(B) Whether the transfer of the petitioner was in bona fide exercise of power and in exigencies of administration? and
(C) Whether the petitioner's transfer ought to have been preceded by notice containing the reasons for such transfer?
3. On the first question, Sri Parasaran, appearing for the appellant urged before us that the 7th respondent is not an educational agency, the management or the Manager of the St. Ann's Colleges as per the A.P. Education Act and the Rules made thereunder, and therefore she has no power or competence to transfer the petitioner from the post of Principal or correspondent. He referred us to the specific ground taken in the affidavit accompanying the Writ Petition, that-
'the Writ of the respondent No. 7 cannot run in regard to matters relating to the administration of educational institutions which are run as per the law of the land and no religious authority can be exercised over them.'
He also invited our attention to the portions of the judgment under appeal which indicate that the aspect of absence of power in the 7th respondent to transfer the petitioner was highlighted before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge had also referred specifically to the constitution of a separate society viz., St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam, for the purpose of establishing the colleges. These contentions were met by the 7th respondent - they found acceptance with the learned single judge - that it was the 7th respondent who appointed the petitioner in her capacity as Superior General of the St. Ann's Society, Guntur and that the appointing authority necessarily has the power of transfer. The other reasons urged by the 7th respondent also appealed to the learned single judge that the petitioner was subject to the religious discipline and was bound by the directions of the superior General as long as she continued in the religious Order.
4. We have referred to these aspects only to indicate that the petitioner had raised the point of jurisdiction and competence of the 7th respondent to transfer her from the post of Principal and Correspondent of St. Ann's Colleges at Mehdipatnam. Those contentions were so understood by the learned single judge, though they were not elaborated as is sought to be done in the appeal now.
5. Another specific contention which the petitioner has taken was that petitioner as Principal of the Colleges was a member of the staff of a private educational institution established, recognised, administered and aided under the A.P. Education Act. It is not disputed that the colleges of which the petitioner is the Principal and Correspondent were established and recognised and are governed by the A.P. Education Act, 1982. They are also receiving financial aid from the State Government. Appointment of teachers have to be reported to and approved by the competent authority' functioning under the A.P. Education Act. It is agreed that it has been so done. Rules providing qualifications, conditions of service etc., of teachers of aided educational institutions established by religious/linguistic minority have to be observed by the management. Counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that Establishment, Recognition and conduct of educational institutions including regulation of conditions of service of teachers are governed by statute and such conditions being statutory and the colleges being an aided institutions, it is open for the petitioner to complain of infraction of any of her rights or interests by respondent No. 7 under colour of assumed managerial authority, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before this Court.
6. On the second point the submission of the petitioner is that transfer of a teacher-cum-correspondent of the colleges on 'religious grounds' to the generalate of the Society is not supported by any reason of administrative exigencies and therefore is ex-facie devoid of bona fides.
7. On the third point petitioner's submission is that the order was meant to have and actually has the effect of depriving her of statutory offices and status and terminating her service both as Principal and correspondent. Counsel submits that such an order has serious civil consequences on her chosen career as a teacher and head of the institutions which she had nurtured for over a decade, and should not have been passed without notice to the petitioner.
8. Mr. Subrahmanya Reddy, counsel for the 7th respondent submitted before us that the petitioner who was Principal of colleges administered by a religious society was transferred by the Head of the Society due to religious reasons. He submitted that the assumption which the petitioner makes that her service was terminated or that the order operates as removal or reduction in rank are unfounded. It is his submission that the Writ Petition is premature in the sense that the petitioner has not yet suffered any damage or penalty, since the 7th respondent may as well utilise her services more advantageously. He referred us to the letter of the governing body dt. 1-9-1981 which appointed the petitioner as Principal and Correspondent. Petitioner accepted the letter and assumed charge on 19-9-81. Petitioner herself had written to the Registrar of the Osmania University on 15-2-1985 about her appointment as Principal of the degree college, seeking approval for such appointment. The Registrar of the University acknowledged that letter and noted the same subject to review at the time of affiliation. He submitted that the 7th respondent whose predecessor Superior General appointed the petitioners on behalf of the governing body as Principal/Correspondent of the colleges necessarily has authority to transfer her. Reference is made to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 to the effect that 'St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam, is part and parcel of the main Society of St. Ann's Guntur, to controvert the contention of the petitioner that the latter Society has no authority to interfere in the affairs of the colleges. Reference is also made to the statement in that counter affidavit to the effect that the 7th respondent had, in her proceedings dt. 4-6-91, transferred Sr. John Mary, Junior Assistant, St. Ann's College, Mehdipatnam to St. Ann's High School, Ravipadu, Guntur District and in her place Sr. Jayapaul was posted from St. Ann's High School, Tallacheruvu. It is stated that in obedience to the said orders of the 7th respondent, petitioner relieved Sr. John Mary on 24-6-91 and admitted Sr. Jayapaul with intimation to the 2nd respondent by letter dt. 30-5-92 for approval of the appointment of Sr. Jayapaul as Junior Assistant. Counsel relies on the above, statement as clearly indicating that the petitioner had accepted St. Ann's Society, Guntur as the authority entitled to transfer the staff of Colleges conducted by the Society including the colleges in question. Reliance is also placed on the statement in the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 to the effect that the impugned order of 'transfer' which is an internal affair of the management cannot be challenged by the petitioner in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India'. Counsel referred us to the extract of the bye-laws of the St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad to the following effect:
'Originally the central society by name society of St. Ann was registered under Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli, the Head Office of which has been located at Amaravathi Road, Guntur. This Society (Name) St. Ann's convent (Place), Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad as a part and parcel of the main society will function under the guidance and instructions of the mother organisation society of St. Ann. This branch was formed only for administrative convenience and as per the advice given by the parent society.'
Reference was also made to the constitution of the Executive Body of St. Ann's convent, Mehdipatnam with Rev. Mother Mary Stella as President, Rev. Sister Petrina as Vice President and Rev. Sister Philomena (Petitioner) as Secretary and Treasurer with two other members. Respondents 1 and 2 asserted that the Society of St. Ann's Convent headed by Mother Mary Stella appointed the petitioner as Principal of St. Ann's Degree College for Women, Mehdipatnam, from the academic year 1983-84, and the petitioner reported this fact to the Registrar of Osmania University in her letter dt. 15-2-1985.
9. Counsel submits that the 7th respondent being the successor to Rev. Mother Mary Stella as Superior General, who appointed the petitioner as Principal, is fully competent to transfer her. He submits that the transfer was in the ordinary course of administration and as a result of exigencies of the religious Society, of which, the 7th respondent is the Superior General. Reference is invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, : (1991)IILLJ591SC to the effect that transfer being an incident of service on administrative exigencises, it shall not be called in question in courts. Reference is also invited to Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna, AIR 1981 SC 1577, State of Kerala v. Rajan, 1990 (2) S.L.R. 526.
10. Sri Innayya Reddy, counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 supported the above submissions. He submitted that respondent No. 5 who has been functioning as the Principal of the Junior college has taken over as acting Principal of the degree college and post-graduate centre and correspondent of the above as also the junior college. 6th respondent has taken charge as principal of junior college. He submits that the averments contained in the affidavit that respondents 5 and 6 are not qualified to be appointed as Principal of the Colleges is factually wrong. He supports the statement of the 7th respondent that she is competent to transfer the petitioner in her capacity as Superior General of the Society of St. Ann's Guntur, which is the parent Society.
11. Counsel for respondents 5 to 7 stated that the scope of the Writ Petition was enlarged out of proportion in the reply affidavit and the petitioner has to confine herself to the pleadings in the affidavit accompanying the Writ Petitioner. He sought to support transfer of the petitioner on the basis of 'religious grounds', administrative exigencies and as resulting from the part played by the petitioner in the establishment of another educational institution without the permission of the Society of St. Ann and in jeopardising its finances to a considerable extent. He referred to the earlier appointment of 6th respondent as Superior of St. Ann's Colleges and the acting principal of the degree college as also the correspondent of the junior college and post-graduate centre, pursuant to a decision of the Superior-General-in-Council. He submitted that policy decision of the Society of St. Ann is not subject to scrutiny of this court in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel submitted that power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be exercised in such a manner as to interfere with the religious rights prescribed by canon law of the Society of St. Ann under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Counsel submitted finally that even if the order of transfer is held to be made in violation of the Principles of natural justice, it is only appropriate that the management is given an opportunity to pass an appropriate order which the exigencies of the situation may call for.
12. Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the Society of St. Ann, Guntur is the real owner of the college, that the St. Ann's convent was registered for administrative convenience and the Board of management of the Society for the purpose of A.P. Education Act was constituted with the Superior General as the President, the petitioner as the Secretary-cum- treasurer, another religious as vice-president and two others as members. He submitted that the above Board of Management appointed the petitioner as Principal and Manager/Correspondent of the colleges. Petitioner is therefore liable to be transferred by the same body. It is also submitted that petitioner had complied with the orders of transfer of staff of the colleges issued by the Superior General in Council on previous occasions without demur and any challenge by her of the order of her transfer cannot be countenanced. He however submitted that the colleges are governed by the A.P. Education Act and the rules relating to minority educational institutions and the Grant-in-Aid Code.
13. It is evident from the pleadings that St. Ann's colleges were established by St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam of which the parent religious society is the Society of St. Ann's Amaravathi Road, Guntur. A separate Board of management was constituted for St. Ann Convent Society with the then Superior General, Mother Mary Stella as President and the petitioner as the Secretary-cum- treasurer. It was that Society which applied for permission for establishment of the Colleges and was granted such permission under Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act. Those colleges were affiliated to the Osmania University. They were also admitted to grant-in-aid under the Grant-in-Aid Code.
14. We have now to see whether the 7th respondent was competent to transfer the petitioner from the posts of Principal and correspondent of the colleges.
15. College is defined in Section 2(11) of the Act to mean-
'a (college including a medical college established or maintained) and administered by or affiliated to or associated with or recognised by, any University in the State and includes a junior college recognised by or affiliated to the Andhra Pradesh Board of Intermediate Education.'
'Educational agency' which is defined in Section 2(17) of the Act, to the extent it is relevant reads:
'educational agency' means in relation to - (a) any minority educational institution (any body of persons which) has established and is administering or proposes to establish and administer such minority educational institution, and...
'Management' is defined in Section 2(27) as-
'the managing committee or the governing body by whatever name called, of a private institution to which the affairs of the said institution are entrusted, but does not include a manager.'
Section 2(28) defines 'manager' as meaning-
'in relation to a private educational or special institution, the person nominated to manage the affairs of the institution under Sub-section (2) of Section 24.'
Section 2(29) defines 'minority educational institution' as-
'a private educational institution of its choice established and administered by a minority, whether based on religious or language, having the right to do so under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.'
'Private institution' is defined in Section 2(35) as-
'an institution imparting education or training, established and administered or maintained by any body of persons and recognied as educational institution by the government, and includes a college, a special institution and a minority educational institution, but does not include an educational institution.'
16. It is evident from the above definitions that the 3 colleges of which the petitioner was the Principal and correspondent are 'private institutions' as defined in Section 2(35) and 'minority educational institutions' as defined in Section 2(29) of the Act. Management of such institutions is the Managing Committee or the governing body to which the affairs of the said institutions are entrusted. It is ordinarily represented by the Manager. Educational agency is a different body as defined in Section 2(17) of the Act. Sri Parasaran emphasises the dichotomy between the 'educational agency' and the 'management'. He submits that the administration of the institution is entrusted to the management, but the educational agency may be a different body. He submits that the St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam which was registered under the Societies Registration Act had applied for and obtained permission to establish the colleges. The Society of St. Ann, Guntur and the St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam, are different entities. The latter alone has got the power of administering the colleges, because it is the 'management' as far as those institutions are concerned, the former not having applied for permission to establish or administer the colleges. According to him, the 7th respondent is the Superior General of the St. Ann's Society, Guntur which is a religious Society, which has no function to perform under the Education Act or the Rules in connection with administration or conduct of the colleges.
17. Counsel for respondents submitted that this point of jurisdiction was not covered by the Writ Petition and was developed only later. We have referred extensively to the pleadings and the judgment under appeal in this connection. In addition to raising the question of competence of the 7th respondent to transfer her, the petitioner had, in her representation dt. 13-6-92, addressed to the Prl. Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Vice-Chancellor of the Osmania University, specifically high-lighted total absence of power in the 7th respondent as follows:
'His Grace Archbiship Dr. S. Arulappa is the Chairman of Board of Management of St. Ann's College (autonomous). There is a Board of Management to deal with the administrative matters including the service conditions of the staff and correspondent. No member of the staff, including the Principal of a private educational institution can be disturbed or proceeded against without any valid reason, that too without following procedure laid down under A.P. Education Act.'
She had also stated that the 7th respondent-
'not being the correspondent of any of the above said colleges, or a member of Board of Management, has no authority to interfere with the affairs Of the above college. Therefore, her order, legally speaking, is a nullity. Under no circumstances, my right to hold the office of Principal and Correspondent under the law can be denied except for reasons of administration.' and
'knowing fully well that she has no authority either to transfer me or change the correspondent-ship, she has taken this step to tarnish my image and lower my authority with the sole purpose of getting control of the college which evidently is an act of jealousy and vested interest.'
18. These representations are annexed to the Writ Petition. We understand the above submissions to mean that the 7th respondent was not the Manager or the Correspondent of the Colleges; nor was she a member of the Board of Management. The chairman of the Board of Management of the colleges which were established and administered by St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam was the Archbishop of Hyderabad Dr. S. Arulappa. The terms and conditions of service of teachers including the Principal were governed by the A.P. Education Act and the rules made thereunder, none of which authorises a stranger by virtue of religious authority over the Principal to be entitled to interfere with the administration of the college.
19. Apparently in reply to those averments, the 7th respondent in her counter affidavit in the Writ Petition stated that-
'Till 1987, the Intermediate and Degree colleges were under the Registered Society of St. Ann's Convent, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad, a sister unit of the parent Society i.e., Society of St. Ann, Guntur; later for administrative convenience, the parent society has registered the St. Ann's convent, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, for which the Superior General is the President and the Asst. Superior General is the Vice- President, and transferred the colleges to the Registered St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.'
20. The above statement contained in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit is sufficient to make out the point stressed by the petitioner that the parent Society viz., Society of St. Ann, Guntur and St. Ann's Cohvent, Mehdipatnam to which the Colleges were transferred were entirely two different entities. It is of course true that the 7th respondent claims that she is the President of the parent Society as also the St. Ann's Convent Society, Mehdipatnam, the Chairman of the Board of Management/governing body of the latter society being the Archbishop of Hyderabad. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, the 7th respondent urged that the correspondent is not the Manager but it is the Superior General, who in her capacity as the Manager appointed the petitioner as Correspondent and that the transfer effected by the Superior General in Council suffered from no irregularity or 'illegality'.
21. We have seen that Manager of a private Educational Institution is a person nominated to manage the affairs of the institution under Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act. That provision reads:
'24 (2): The management shall for the purpose of this Act, nominate a person to manage the affairs of the institution, whether called by the name of Secretary, correspondent or by any other name, and intimate such nomination within thirty days thereof to the competent authority.'
22. It is obvious that it is not the Manager who appoints a Correspondent. It is the management as defined in Section 24(2) who appoints a correspondent, who may also be called Manager or Secretary. 'Management' means the managing committee or the governing body of a private institution to which the affairs of the said institution are entrusted. That does not include the Manager. The claim of the 7th respondent that she is the Manager and therefore she is entitled to appoint a Correspondent is not supported by the provisions of law. Only the management can nominate a person to manage the affairs of an institution. That cannot be done by a Manager. The case of the petitioner that she was appointed as a Correspondent by the Board of Management of St. Ann's Convent Society, Mehdipatnam seems to us to be more logical and the assertion of the 7th respondent that in her capacity as Superior General, she is entitled to appoint a Correspondent is unsustainable in law.
23. Additional material has been placed before us in the form of additional counter-affidavit. The fact that St. Ann's Convent Society had constituted a Board of Management of the Post-graduate College is evident from the following assertion contained in the additional counter-affidavit:
'While constituting the Board of Management of post-graduate College, the Appellant herein nominated three persons to the Board of Management, while it is the Society that is authorised to do so and under a resolution passed by the Board of Management. The appellant usurped all the powers and functions of the Superior General and virtually became one person Board of Management of the college, displacing the Superior General.'
In paragraph 3 it is asserted that-
'1 submit that the transfers are made according to the needs of the Society and not according to the status, educational qualifications or seniority etc., of a member.'
This is clear indication of the position taken by the 7th respondent that she has got the power to order transfer irrespective of educational qualifications or seniority etc., of teachers who are governed by the provisions of A.P. Education Act and the rules made thereunder. The question for us to consider is whether such a large claim can be sustained in the context of the provisions of the A.P. Education Act and the rules made thereunder?
24. Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act deals with permission for establishment of educational institutions. An educational agency applying for permission have to satisfy the requirements of Sub-section (3). Clause (c) of that sub-section obliges the educational agency to appoint teaching staff qualified according to the rules made by the Government and to satisfy other requirements laid down by the Act, Rules and Orders as a condition for grant of permission. Section 24 dealing with appointment and removal of manager of private institutions requires the management of every private institution to be constituted in such manner and shall consist of such number of members as may be prescribed. The second proviso of Section 24(1) of the Act provides that-
'the constitution of the management shall apply to a minority educational institution, in so far as it is not repugnant to clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India:'
We have seen that that the management has to nominate a person to manage the affairs of the institution, whether called by the name of Secretary, correspondent or by any other name, and intimate such nomination within thirty days thereof to the competent authority.
25. Section 25 provides for duties of manager of private Institutions to be that he shall be responsible for managing and conducting the affairs of the private institution in accordance with the provisions of the Act, rules and orders made thereunder.
26. It is obvious that the educational agency has a statutory obligation to appoint teaching staff qualified according to the rules made by the Government and also satisfy all the other requirements laid down by the Act, rules and orders made thereunder (vide Section 20(3) of the Act). The educational agency has to constitute management in the prescribed manner. It is evident from the provisions of Section 24 that it shall be a body of persons so constituted as to consist of the specified number of persons. It is provided further that the manner of its constitution and the number of members which it shall consist of shall be prescribed. Except to the extent that it shall not be repugnant to clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the minority educational institutions also are obliged to have managements as mentioned above. It is that body which nominates a person to manage the affairs of that institution. He/she may be called either as Secretary or Correspondent or any other name. In him/her shall vest the responsibility for managing and conducting affairs of the private institution in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Orders. Provision for his removal is also made in Section 24.
27. It may be possible to constitute a Superior General in Council of a religious Society as a management subject of course to such body satisfying the requirements of Section 24 of the Act. The basic requirement is that the educational agency applying for permission and in whose favour permission has been granted must have constituted the same body of individuals as the management.
28. In the present case, it is beyond dispute that educational agency which applied for permission to establish the colleges was St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam (formerly of Vijayanagar Colony) and not the religious Society of St. Ann, Guntur, nor the Superior General in Council of that Society. We have not been referred to any proceedings whereby the Superior General was nominated by the management body as the manager, Secretary or Correspondent of the three Colleges. Without such nomination by the Board of management, the 7th respondent cannot claim to be the manager of the colleges. The only person in whom the powers of management and conduct of the Colleges are vested is the manager/secretary/correspondent, nominated by the management body.
29. Petitioner claims to be the Principal/correspondent appointed by the Board of management of the St. Ann's convent Society, Mehdipatnam of which the President was the predecessor of the 7th respondent. Chairman of the governing body of the Post-Graduate College was the Archbishop of Hyderabad and that body had appointed her as Principal-cum-Correspondent. Those specific claims have not been controverted. The only variation in the counter affidavit of respondents 5 to 7 is that the Superior General-in-Council appointed the petitioner as Principal and Correspondent of the Colleges and that body is competent to transfer her as/well.
30. The specific averment of the petitioner that the Board of management of the Graduate and Post-graduate colleges is a separate body of which the Chairman is the Archbishop of Hyderabad not having been specifically controverted, we have to hold that the educational agency which applied for permission to open the College under Section 20of the Act, and the management constituted under Section 24 of the Act, was neither the Society of St. Ann, Guntur nor the Superior General-in-Council of that Society. It was a different Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, viz., St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam (formerly Vijayanagar Colony). We have necessarily to hold that the Board of Management constituted by that Society is the 'management' under Section 24 of the Act. We have to hold further that the petitioner who was appointed as correspondent by that Board of management was nominated as the manager of the Colleges under Section 24(2) of the Act. Once appointed as a manager by the managing body, that person can be removed only by the same body in accordance with the provisions of the constitution or bye-laws of the Society as provided under Section 24(1) of the Act. That not having been done, it is difficult to hold that the 7th respondent in her individual capacity as a Superior General of the Society of St. Ann's or the Superior General in council is competent to transfer the petitioner. We have not been referred to any order of proceedings of the competent authority or the Government approving the nomination of the 7th respondent as 'Management', 'Manager' or 'Secretary' or 'Correspondent' under the A.P. Education Act or the Rules made thereunder.
31. The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minority Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition and Regulation) Rules, 1988 promulgated in G.O.Ms. No. 526 Education (Rules) Department dt. 21-12-1988 governs establishment, recognition and regulation of minority educational institutions under the private managements. 'Educational Agency' in rule 2(d) of the rules was defined to mean - 'the Society/Trust/Committee/Mission/Church/ Wakf Board and the like managing any of the educational institutions coming within the ambit of the Act. St. Ann's Convent Society, Mehdipatnam is obviously the 'educational agency' as defined in rule 2(d) in respect of the three colleges. Detailed provisions relating to the procedure for grant of permission and establishment of minority educational institutions, their approval etc., are contained in those rules. Rule 8 provides for appointment of staff and disciplinary control Only candidates selected by the Staff Selection Committee constituted by the respective managements for that purpose can be appointed to the teaching and non-teaching posts in the institutions functioning under the minority community managements. Such appointments are to be made from candidates who are eligible. They are subjected to scrutiny about the leigibility, and their appointments are to be approved by the competent authority. Rule 11(6) provides that the educational agency is entitled to constitute its own managing committee to manage and administer the affairs of its institution either on the lines prescribed by the Government for other non-minority private educational institutions or to adopt a committee of its own choice to suit its requirements. The management has got an obligation to pay salaries at the rates prescribed by following the procedure prescribed by the competent authorities. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 is in the following terms:
'8(5). The educational agency is empowered to remove, terminate, dismiss or discharge a staff member only with the prior approval of the Competent Authority by following the rules and regulations prescribed by itself and got approved by the competent Authority. The competent Authority shall normally approve the action proposed by the educational agency unless it considers that the action proposed is against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the rules and regulations adopted by the management itself.'
32. The provisions of the above rules make it clear that administration and affairs of the college are conducted through a body of management constituted by the educational agency. That is a statutory requirement from which there is no escape.
33. Qualifications of teachers are prescribed by the rules. Only qualified teachers can be appointed. Such appointments made by the management are subject to scrutiny and approval by the competent authority. Removal, termination or discharge of staff members can be made only with the prior approval of the competent authority after following the rules and regulations prescribed by itself and approved by the competent authority. That statutory authority is entitled to refuse approval if it considers that the action proposed is against the principles of natural justice or contrary to the rules and regulations adopted by the management itself. Orders of such authorities are subject to prior approval under Section 83 and appeals under Section 79 or 80 or 89 or revision under Section 90 of the Act.
34. It is evident from the above provisions that an educational agency or the management functions under the statute and its actions are subject to approval by the competent authority. The competent authority has power to refuse approval for termination, removal, dismissal or discharge of staff members and such orders are subject to approval or appellate review or revision by statutory authorities. In addition to that is the fact that the Colleges are admitted to aid under Grant-in-Aid Code. Grant of aid by the State Government invites public law obligations to conduct the institution in such a manner as to advance its excellence.
35. 'Grant-in-Aid Code for Educational Institutions other than Elementary Schools and Anglo Indian Schools' governs grantof aid to recognised educational institutions under private management. Rule 2 defines 'Manager' as including a Board of Managers. Rule 6 provides that no grant shall be paid to an institution, which has not been recognised by or under the A.P. Educational Rules. Rule 7 deals with 'management'. That is in the following terms:
'7. Management: Every institution on behalf of which aid is sought shall be under the management of one or more persons recognized by the Department; who in the capacity of proprietors, or of trustees or of members of a committee elected by the Society or Association by which the institution is maintained, shall undertake to be answerable for the maintenance of the institution and the fulfilment of all the conditions of recognition and aid including the due enforcement of such rules of discipline as are prescribed from time to time.
The management may, with the approval of the department appoint a person as correspondent to transact tine current business of the institution with the department.
Applications for change of management in respect of Secondary Schools and Special institutions (excluding Oriental Colleges) shall be made to the Regional Dy. D.P.I, concerned. In respect of all other institutions, applications for change of management shall be made to the D.P.I. Applications for change of management of institutions should be made to the Director; The Director shall approve the change of correspondentship in respect of Colleges. The change of correspondentship in respect of other institutions shall be approved by the officers authorised by the Director in that behalf.
The Director, may, after giving an opportunity for making representation, declare any person unfit to hold the post of correspondent in respect of a College receiving aid under the Code and remove him from the correspondentship either permanently or for receiving aid under the Code and remove him for specified charge of maladministration or for failure to comply with or for not following or adhering to the instruction issued by the department, besides taking such other action as may be deemed necessary under the provisions of the Code. The order of the Director in all such matters shall be final.'
Rule 15 provides for direct payment to teachers and provides that whenever the management commits default in such payment, the Regional Deputy Director may, after conducting due inquiries, order payment to the staff directly from out of the grant due to the institution. Rule 17 provides that all payments of aid shall be subject to audit. Rule 21 provides for appeal or revision of any order by the competent authority to the next higher authority.
36. Chapter IV deals with teaching grants to aided colleges for general education and for teacher's training. Rule 30 provides that-
'No college shall be eligible for grant unless the prior approval of the Government is obtained for its establishment', and
'In order to ensure compact and effective governing bodies for aided colleges, the managements shall reconstitute them with small number including the representatives of the Education Department and the University.'
The scale of aid payable to private managements is prescribed in Chapter IV. Provisions are made for grant of aid for buildings, building sites and play grounds (Chapter IX) and for furniture, books and appliances (Chapter X). These provisions clearly illustrate that private educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid are subject to considerable amount of control by the Government from the very establishment of the College and throughout its functioning.
37. Respondent 7 had no case before us that she had applied for permission to establish the college or that she had applied for and received aid either as 'manager' or on behalf of governing body of the colleges. What we have, on the other hand, is the uncontroverted assertion of the petitioner to the effect that it was the St. Ami's Convent, Mehdipatnam which is admittedly a different Society registered under the Societies Act, which applied for and obtained permission to establish the colleges and obtained affiliation from the Osmania University. In G.O.Ms. No. 86 Education dt. 22-1-1991 the government admitted the St. Ann's College for Women, Mehdipatnam, to grant-in-aid. An amount of Rs. 24,71,150/- was sanctioned towards grant-in-aid from 18-8-89 to 28-2-91 (Rs. 8,75,200/- for the period from 18-8-89 to 28-2-90 and Rs. 15,95,950/- for the period from 1-3-90 to 28-2-91). That order also approved the pattern of staff of the college who were admitted to aid under the Grant-in-Aid Code.
38. The respondent herself stated in the additional counter affidavit that-
'while constituting the Board of Management of post-Graduate College, the Appellant herein nominated three persons to the Board of Management while it is the Society that is authorised to do so under a resolution passed by the Board of Management. The appellant usurped all the powers and functions of the Superior General and virtually became one person Board of Management.'
39. In yet another counter-affidavit which she had filed, she asserted that-
'it is submitted that the board of Management of our autonomous Degree College is contrary to law. It is constituted in violation of the guidelines issued by the U.G.C. According to which three members have to be nominated by the management of the College. The petitioner has herself personally nominated these three members without reference to the management. The two nominees, one from the University and another from the State Government are not nominated by the said authorities but the petitioner herself after obtaining their consent nominated them.'
It is clear from the above averments that there are two Societies - one, the parent Society of which the 7th respondent is the President (Superior General)-in- Council. There is another society registered under Societies Registration Act for administrative purposes under the guidance of the parent Society, the President of which is the Superior General of the Society of St. Ann, Guntur and the Secretary and Treasurer of which is the petitioner. That body had to be reconstituted by complying with the requirements of Rule 30 of the Grant-in- Aid Code by nomination of representatives of the University and education department. The Archbishop of Hyderabad was its Chairman. The management which applied for and obtained permission to establish the college, obtained affiliation and recognition from the University and the competent Authority, was the St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam. The governing body of that Society was the management under the A.P. Education Act and the rules including the Grant-in-Aid Code. 7th respondent seems to have assumed that since the petitioner is a member of the religious Society of St. Ann, she is entitled to transfer her for religious reasons. May be as member of a religious society, petitioner is subject to its discipline; but that code of conduct as member of the religious Society cannot be incorporated into the discipline of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and which is an educational agency or a management under the Education Act and the rules.
40. We have referred to the relevant rules and the pleadings rather extensively to indicate - (1) that the Colleges in question were established, recognised, affiliated and sanctioned aid subject to detailed provisions made under the A.P. Education Act and the rules made thereunder; (2) that the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules contemplate a 'management' consisting of a body of individuals and the constitution and number of persons of which are subject to prescriptions; and that approval of the competent authority for constitution of such body is absolutely essential.; (3) that only such management as is constituted under the provisions of Section 24 of the A.P. Education Act, read with Rule 30 (Chapter IV) of the 'Grant-in-Aid Code of Educational Institutions other than Elementary Schools and Anglo Indian Schools' and approved by the competent authority are recognised by statute and the rules; (4) that such management (governing bodies) alone can nominate a manager and such nomination is also subject to approval by the competent authority; and (5) that no agency other than the management is competent to nominate a manager or appoint a Principal. It necessarily follows that if it is an agency other than the management/ governing body, it has no power to appoint or transfer the Principal or correspondent of the colleges.
41. In support of the first point raised by the appellant, counsel invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in The governing body of St. Anthony's College, Shillong v. Re.Fr. Paul Petta, : (1989)ILLJ239SC .
The facts in that case were that the respondent - Rev.Father Petta - was appointed by the governing body of the St. Anthony's College, Shillong as its Principal. The Director of Public Instruction had approved that appointment. The head of the Society was Salesian Provincial. He was also the President of the governing body of the St. Anthony's College. He transferred the Principal Rev. Fr. Petta, and appointed in his place, Rev. Fr. J.Kenny as acting Principal. Later, the governing body appointed Fr. Stephan Mavely as regular Principal. On the motion of Fr. Petta, Gauhati High Court set aside the order of his transfer as violative of principles of natural justice and in contravention of the rules of the governing body. The Supreme Court held that the religious Society of which the Principal was a member, had no authority to transfer him from the post of Principal in which his appointment was duly approved according to the rules by the Director of Public Instruction. The Court held that the Principal having been appointed by the governing body and that appointment having been approved by the Director of public Instruction, the question of his transfer could be gone into and determined only by the governing body and not by the religious Society to which he belonged.
42. We respectfully follow that decision and hold that the transfer of the petitioner by the Superior General of the Religious Society of St. Ann, Guntur, is an order devoid of jurisdiction. Even in her capacity as President of the St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam, the 7th Respondent had no authority to transfer the petitioner. That power vests only in the governing body of the above Society and is subject to approval by the competent authority. It is evident that in the present case, the governing body of the Society did not act; if at all only its President, the 7th respondent did. It is not the case of the 7th respondent that the constitution of the governing body had conferred any such power on its President. The transfer was not and could not be approved by the competent authority, because the authority which transferred had no power or competence to effect transfer of the petitioner.
43. One other fact which we have to remember is that neither the Society of St. Ann, Guntur, nor the St. Ann's convent, Mehdipatnam have other colleges under their administrative control to transfer the petitioner from the post of Principal of the graduate college and post-graduate Centre. Therefore, virtually the transfer amounts to removal from service. It is of course true, that as member of a religious society, she can be transferred to the generalate. But as a principal whose appointment has been approved by the competent authority under the A.P. Education Act and the Grant-in-Aid code, she is entitled to continue as Principal in service till she attains the age of superannuation or her service is validly terminated in accordance with the Rules. That right to which she is entitled by reason of statutory provisions cannot be taken away by a unilateral action of the religious Society.
44. We are not impressed by the submission of counsel for the 7th respondent that the petitioner does not suffer any reversion or removal from service and it may perhaps be that she may be accommodated in a better office than principal of the two and correspondent of the 3 colleges. The question however is, what is the corresponding post of equal status in a college which she may be offered? It can, if at all, only be a corresponding teaching post governed by the provisions of the A.P. Education Act and the Rules made thereunder. Admittedly, her transfer is not to any such corresponding post, because none exists under the control of the 7th respondent. None is available under the control of either the religious Society of St. Ann, Guntur or the St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam. The court is, on occasions, entitled to rip open the veil of innocuous orders passed allegedly in administrative exigencies to see the substance of the offending orders. When we remove the shroud of mystery, from the transfer of the petitioner on 'religious grounds' what is revealed is an order removing the petitioner from the post of Principal. It was not competent for the 7th respondent to pass such an order.
45. Counsel for the respondents suggested that the 7th respondent being a private individual, no writ shall issue against her. They submitted that being a religious authority, she is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are satisfied that it is competent for this court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue to any person or authority, directions, orders or writs. That is evident from the Article itself. If the petitioner who invokes jurisdiction complains of violation of statutory or public duties or obligations which are enforceable by issue of a writ of mandamus or whose determinations can be interdicted by issue of a writ of certiorari, this court is entitled to intervene. In the present case, it is not disputed that the respondent has passed the impugned order under colour of authority as Manager of Private Educational institutions which were established and are administered by virtue of permission granted under Sections 20 and 21 of the A.P. Education Act. It is not in dispute that statutory duties are cast upon the educational agency, the management and manager of such institutions under the A.P. Education Act and the rules framed thereunder. The conditions of service of teachers are governed by the provisions contained in the A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987, hereinafter referred to as the 'Administration and Control Rules'. One of the conditions for grant of permission to open the college is that the educational agency applying for permission shall 'appoint teaching staff according to the rules made by the Government in that behalf, satisfy other requirements laid down by the Act, rules and orders.' Rule 7 of the Administration and Control Rules provides for staff pattern, which has to be followed by all recognised institutions. The management has got an obligation to follow the staff pattern prescribed by the Board of intermediate Education/University/Director of Higher Education. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 provides for approval of appointment by the competent authority. In respect of such approved appointments, sub-rule (4) casts an obligation on the educational agency to pay salaries as per the Government scales of pay. Detailed provisions relating to refusal/grant/withdrawal of permission for opening new educational institutions are containing in Rules 8 toll.
46. The A.P. Minority Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition and Regulation) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Recognition Rules) framed under Section 99 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 apply to all educational institutions which are managed by minority communities (both religious and linguistic). These rules also cast obligations on the minority management to comply with obligations which are statutory in character. Rule 8 of the Recognition Rules deals with appointment of staff and disciplinary control. Sub-rule (4) thereof enables educational agency to adopt the rules and regulations relating to the disciplinary control of the staff prescribed by the Government for other non-minority institutions or to frame their own rules and regulations and abide by the same. The rules and regulations so framed shall not deviate from the usual norms and shall uphold the principles of natural justice. It states that in the absence of rules and regulations framed by the educational agency, those prescribed by the Government for other private educational institutions shall prevail. There is no case before us that the educational agency has framed any rule, naturally therefore, the rules prescribed by the government for other private educational institutions have to be followed by the institution. We have seen that the Grant-in-Aid Code also casts obligations on the management to deserve payment of grant. It is clear from those provisions that the institution has to earn the grant by compliance with the rules prescribed in that regard.
47. A perusal of the above provisions clearly indicates that private educational institutions are subject to pervasive State Control. The whole of the teaching grant is paid by the State on condition that the staff pattern prescribed by the Government and rules relating to conditions of service and disciplinary control of the staff are duly observed by the institution. Institutions imparting education subject to statutory provisions and which are funded by the State to a substantial extent are undeniably public institutions. The conduit through which state funds are furnished for imparting general education as prescribed by the State are necessarily institutions to which are attached statutory and public law obligations. There cannot be any doubt therefore that such institutions and those who administer and manage them take their colour as public bodies or at least as private bodies burdened with statutory and public obligations to perform. It is open for this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interdict such agencies, when they attempt to transgress the limits of law under which they are constituted or violate the principles of natural justice or perform the statutory or public duties in an oppressive manner resulting in manifest injustice.
48. The very question as to whether private educational institutions are subject to jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was considered by a Division Bench of this court, to which one of us (VSN, J.) was a party, in Vasavi College of Engineering v. A. Suryanarayana, : 1991(3)ALT335 . This court relied in that decision on the judgments of the Supreme Court in All Saints High School v. Govt. of A.P., : [1980]2SCR924 , Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India, : [1987]1SCR238 , Mrs. Y. Teclamma v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1210.
49. In Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association7 the Supreme Court reiterated that-
'the management of a minority Educational Institution cannot be permitted under the guise of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution, to oppress or exploit its employees any more than any other private employee. Oppression or exploitation of the teaching staff of an educational institution is bound to lead, inevitably, to discontent and deterioration of the standard of instruction imparted in the institution affecting adversely the object of making the institution an effective vehicle of education for the minority community or other persons who resort to it.'
50. In S.A.M.S.S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani, : (1989)IILLJ324SC the Supreme Court upheld the claim of teachers of a college affiliated to the University for revised pay scales, holding that the management had an obligation to pay the revised pay scales, as-
'the service conditions of the academic staff are not purely of a private character and also have superadded protection by University decisions creating a legal right-duty relationship between the staff and the management.'
The court held that management of private aided College affiliated to the University and aided by the State Government discharge public functions by way of education, that they are subject to the rules and regulations of the governing statute, that their activities are closely supervised by the University authorities and therefore employment in such institutions is not devoid of any public character. Relying on the decisions in Dwarkanath v. I.T.O., : [1965]57ITR349(SC) , Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. lmanual, : (1969)IILLJ479SC the court also held that - 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 and that 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.'
The court also relied on the principle, Judl. Review of Administrative Act, 4th Ed. P. 540 that-
'To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by character, common law, custom or even contract.'
51. On the basis of the above decisions, we hold that the petitioner/appellant is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to complain of infraction of her rights which are protected by the A.P. Education Act and the rules made there under by any authority or person acting under colour of assumed power of management.
52. The next contention which was urged was that petitioner being a transferable employee, she is not entitled to challenge her transfer on exigencies of the institution and that she cannot resist such transfer in view of the obligation which she owed to the religious Society of which she is a member. We have seen that almost identical contentions were raised and rejected in Rev. Fr. Patta (4 supra). Counsel for the respondent invited our attention to Shilpi Bose (1 supra), State of Kerala v. Rajan (3 supra), Shanti Kumari (2 supra) in support of the submission that the court shall be slow to interfere with orders of transfer. Counsel submitted that the transfer of the petitioner does not involve any penal consequences to her, that according to the discipline of the religious society to which the petitioner belongs, she is not entitled to receive or appropriate salary for services rendered in the institutions belonging to the society and therefore there can be no question of any financial loss resulting from her transfer from the post of the Principal. It is stated that irrespective of status or qualifications, members of the society are liable to be deployed to institutions to render services according to the requirements of the Society. The sum and substance of the submission is that petitioner cannot be a person aggrieved by the impugned transfer because of her religious vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.
53. In Shilpi Bose (1 supra) the Supreme Court considered the correctness of the judgment of the Patna High Court which upheld the transfer of female employees on their requests to places where their husbands were posted, resulting in transfer of some other employees. Those persons challenged the transfer orders. The Patna High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions. The unsuccessful employees filed the appeal. The court held that if the-
'competent authority issues transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered with by the court, merely because the transfer orders were passed on the request of the employees concerned.'
The court observed further:
'the transfer orders had been issued by the competent authority which did not violate any mandatory rule, therefore the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer orders' and 'the courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide.'
54. In Shanti Kumari (2 supra) the court upheld the order of the Patna High Court, refusing to interfere with the order of transfer of a government servant which was shown to be 'due to exigencies of service or due to administrative reasons'. The court observed:
'counsel for the appellant however contends that the impugned order was in breach of the government instructions with regard to transfers in the Healh Department. If that be so, the authorities will look into the matter and redress the grievance of the appellant.'
55. State of Kerala v. Rajan (3 supra) contained an extreme proposition that even if the transfer of a government servant was shown to have been made in violation of guidelines issued by the State Government in that matter, it did not give any right to the government servant to assail such transfer on the ground that particular guideline enunciated by the State Government has been violated.
56. One of us (VSN, J.) had occasion to consider the same question in some detail in Maj.C.V.V. Reddy v. Team Leader, Army Team, Bharat Dynamics Ltd., Hyd, : (1993)ILLJ194AP . After referring to a number of decisions including Shanti Kumari (2 supra), R. Vardha Rao v. State of Karnataka, : (1986)IILLJ516SC , S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India, : (1979)ILLJ25SC , Gujarath Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, : (1989)IILLJ470SC it was held that-
'any order of transfer must be made in public interest and in the exigencies of service on administrative grounds; It must not be in colorable or mala fide exercise of power. It should not be arbitrary. It must be made by a competent authority in accordance with the rules and the instructions, if any, governing the transfer policy and that the transfer must be ordered by a competent authority in bona fide exercise of power. It should not be a 'fixed' transfer or for settling scores.'
57. The same question was considered in G. Babu v. Chief Engineer and Ors., 1989 (6) SLR 245 wherein the court held that-
'The basic question which has to be asked and answered as in the case of any other order made in exercise of administrative discretion is, whether the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides, or abuse of power, or though worded in innocuous terms, really camouflages, collateral or oblique purposes like unduly favouring one at the expense of another or penalise or victimise or harass the concerned employee. The answer which courts have given over the years has been that if such vitiating circumstances are shown to exist, the courts will step in, review the order of transfer and grant relief as the justice of the cause demands.'
We are of the opinion that those principles shall govern this case also.
58. Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the order not being final in character, petitioner cannot urge that it is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. It is not denied that there are no other junior or degree college or post-graduate college conducted by the religious society of St. Ann, Guntur or St. Ann's Convent, Mehdipatnam to which the petitioner can be transferred. The effect of the order of transfer was clearly to terminate her sendees as Principal of those colleges. If that be the position, petitioner has suffered serious civil consequences as a result of her transfer. Even apart from that, respondents have sought to justify the order of transfer on various instances of impropriety which may amount even to misconduct of the petitioner. We are not called upon to consider the propriety or sufficiency of such reasons. The only question with which we are concerned is whether an authority wielding power is obliged to give notice before it exercises the power adversely affecting the civil rights or enforceable interests of a citizen. We have no doubt in that regard.
59. There was a faint suggestion that the court may not insist upon the application of natural justice to religious matters covered by canon law. We propose to chart our course clear of turbulence. Even otherwise, it is not necessary for us to deal with that question in this case. We find it difficult to accept that proposition in this case, since what we are concerned with in this appeal is not any religious matter or the ramifications of canon law. It relates to a citizen's protest of invasion of rights protected by statute - law by persons assuming to have authority. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that there is nothing ungodly or irreligious about natural justice. The first rule of natural justice - audi alteram partem - was born when God confronted Adam with the first sin of the latter in the Garden of Eeden. The briefest and best enunciation of natural justice is found in a decision of an illustrious former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, Justice MS.Menon, in Guptan v. State, 1963 K.L.T. 1051 'All wielding of power shall be held in the leading strings of fair procedure'. We are of the opinion that any wielding of power that affects rights of citizens shall answer the test of conformity to natural justice. Removal of a Principal from an office with rights protected by statute under colour of authority shall be no exception. It has been specifically spelt out in Rev. Fr. Petta (4 supra) in almost similar circumstances that management has an obligation to give notice to the principal before he is transferred, because it affects the rights of a teacher as principal of an affiliated and aided college.
60. The pleadings do no disclose that the order of transfer was preceded by any notice or enquiry. We hold that in so far as the rights of the petitioner which are protected by statute are invaded and impaired, she is entitled to notice preceding the action. Absence of such notice vitiates the order. We therefore quash the order impugned herein. We make it clear that this does not preclude the duly constituted management from taking such action as may be called for after due notice to the petitioner and in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.
61. In the light of the above discussion, we do not think it necessary for us to consider the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the order of transfer, in effect, amounts to dismissal and violates Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act or to retrenchment without obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority and is therefore violative of Section 83 of the A.P. Education Act.
62. We, therefore hold that the order dt. 10-6-1992 passed by the 7th respondent transferring the petitioner from the post of Principal of St. Ann's Degree College and Post-graduate centre, Mehdipatnam and as correspondent of those two colleges and the St. Ann's Junior Colleges, is devoid of jurisdiction. We also hold that the order was not passed in the exigencies of service and in bona fide exercise of power. We hold further that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
63. In the result, we allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. 7412/92 and allow the Writ Petition. A writ of certiorari will therefore issue to quash the order dt. 10-6-92 of the 7th respondent transferring the petitioner from the post of Principal and Correspondent of St. Ann's College for Women, Mehdipatnam. A writ of mandamus will issue directing continuance of the petitioner in the post of Principal and Correspondent of St. Ann's Degree College and Post-graduate Centre and as correspondent of St. Ann's Junior College, Mahdipatnam.
The respondents shall pay the costs to the petitioner including Advocate's fee of Rs. 1,000/-.
64. Counsel for the 7th respondent made an oral request for leave to the appeal to the Supreme Court of India under Article 134-A of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that since we have based our decisions largely on decisions of the Supreme Court bearing on all important aspects of the matter, there is no question of law of public importance which is required to be decided by the Supreme Court of India. We, therefore, dismiss the application for leave.
65. After hearing Counsel on both sides, we are of the opinion, to avoid embarrassment to either sides, that it is necessary that stafus quo as it obtains on this date shall be maintained for a period of six (6) weeks so as to enable the respondents to seek special leave of the Supreme Court to file an appeal.