Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified 11 V[) when the service are terminated in violation of mandatory l provisions of a statute. This aspect of the matter has been considered in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College's case ( Supra ). 17. Yet again in Smt. Jawala DeDi Vldya Mandir's case ( Supra ), the Apex Court observed :­ "4. We are unable ,to accept the contention strenuously advanced before us by the appellant's learned coUnsel that respondent 1 is a puhlic body or a statutory authority and therefore the appellant would be entitled to obtain a declaration that she continued to be in the service of respondent 1 since the order terminating her services has been found to be unlawful. The regulations of the t:niversity or the provisions of the Education Code framed by the State Government may be applicable to respondent I and if the provisions thereof are violated by respondent I, the University may be entitled to disaffiliate the institution and the Government may perhaps be entitled to withdraw the educational "grant payable to the institution. That does not, however, mean that respondent 1 is a public or a statutory body. Respondent I is a private institution which is registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. It was established by one Nand Lal, a retired Deputy Collector, who named it after his wife Smt. Jwala Devi. The Society was established for the purpose of managing the institution." Following its decision in. Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College's case (Supra ), it was observed :­ "We may further assume that since this procedure was not fullowed by the Society, the order of terminating the appellant's service is unlawful. But the appellant's is an employer of a private institution and their mutual rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the contract, Exhibit 1, which was entered into by them in 1953. Since under those terms the appellant's service were liable to be terminated on three month's notice, all that she would be entitled to, even if the dismissal is wrongful, IS a decree for damages and not an order of reinstatement or declaration that notwithstan~ing the termination of her services she continued to be in service." ,• r 12 1~ 18. The matter has been considered by one of us ( S.B. Sinha, C.J. ) in Ram Saran Shastry v. State of West Bengal & Ors.4, wherein the CalCutta High Court considering a large number of decisions held that writ petition would not lie against the management of a school when the teacher did not receive any salary or allowances from the Government nor any amount was spent upon the petitioner from the public fund. It was held :­ "40. For the reasons aforementioned, it must be held that no writ lies as against the Managing Committee of the respondent school at the instance of the petitioner because the "'Tit petition does not involve any public law element in between himself and the concerned respondents. In view of the fact that the statutory rules framed by the State having not been followed in the appointment of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner has derived any legal right to obtain a writ of or in the nature of mandamus, as has been sought for. The submission of Mr. Sanyal to the effect that the petitioner has a legitimate expectation that his service would be approved in terms ofthe Rules framed by the State, cannot also be accepted. Only because in the appointment Jetter allegedly it was stated that the petitioner would be entitled to the Government D.A., the same does not mean that a promise was made by the school authorities that he would be a Government servant. In any case, the State is not bound by the purported promise. It is now well known that no relief can be granted only on the basis of legitimate expectation for obtaining a writ oJ Mandamus. There must exist a legal right in the petitioner and a corresponding legal duty cast on the respondent Such a legal right being not present in the case of the petitioner, a writ cannot be issued only upon invokmg the doctrine of legitimate expectation." The Court also negated the contention of applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel noticing :­ , "In Syed Iqbal AU Imam Raza vs. Slate aJBihar & Anr.• reported in AIR.1994 Pama 167, a bench of five judges stated­ 4 t995 (I) CHN 419