Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 500 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 27	 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Second Appeal No. 235 of 1960. B. R. L. Iyengar and E. C. Agrawala	 for the appellant. R. Gopalakrishnan	 for the respondent. 8 The Judgment of the Court calling for a report was delivered by Shah	 J. The appellant was appointed on April 10	 1949	 HeadMistress of St. Aloysius Higher Elementary School	 Urva then in State of Madras. On June 1	 1955	 the Manager of the School reduced her to the post of an Assistant Teacher. Her appeal to the District Educational Officer	 South Kanara	 against the action of the Manager was rejected. In second appeal	 the Divisional Inspector of Schools	 Coimbatore	 by order dated July 5	 1956	 allowed the appeal and directed the District Educational Officer to issue instructions to the Management of the School to reinstate the appellant as Head Mistress. But no effect was given to that order by the Management. On June 26	 1957	 the appellant filed the suit out of which this appeal arises claiming a	 mandatory injunction directing the Management of the School to reinstate her to the post of Head Mistress and damages for loss resulting from the wrongful action of the Management. It was the appellant 's case that the school was receiving grantin aid from the Government of Madras and was subject to the supervision and control of the Education Department of the Government of Madras	 and since the reorganization of the States	 of the Mysore Government of the affairs of the school	 said the appellant	 were conducted according to the rules and regulations framed by the Government and embodied in the rules relating to the elementary schools framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act	 1920	 and on that account the order passed by the Manager removing her from the post of Head Mistress stood vacated	 and refusal of the Manager to reinstate her was illegal	 because the Manager was bound by rr. 13 & 14 framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act to obey the order passed by the Divisional Inspector of Schools on an appeal preferred by her. The suit was resisted by the Management. They contended that they were not bound by the Madras Elementary Education Act or the rules framed thereunder; that the Manager alone was responsible for the "efficiency	 strength and progress" of the school and for the internal discipline	 which were all matters left to his discretion and the Management could not be compelled to reinstate the appellant as Head Mistress when she did not command their confidence. The Trial Court held that the appellant was not entitled to claim reinstatement as Head Mistress	 because the action of the Management removing the appellant 's from the post of Head Mistress was not illegal. The Trial Court also held that the orders 9 passed by the Educational authorities were not binding on the Manager and the action taken by the Manager "though severe"	 could not be declared illegal. In appeal the District Court reserved the Judgment passed by the Trial Court and decreed the appellant 's suit and issued a mandatory injunction directing the Management of the School to reinstate the appellant as Head Mistress of the School. Against that decree a Second Appeal was preferred to the High Court of Mysore. The High Court reversed the decree passed by the District Court and ordered that the appellant 's suit do stand dismissed. Against that order this appeal is preferred with special leave. The principal question which fell to be determined before the High Court was whether the rules framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act	 1920	 which conferred authority upon the educational authorities of the State	 were statutory and enforceable at the instance of a person prejudicially affected by breach thereof. The Madras Elementary Education Act 8 of 1920 which originally contained 56 sections has been amended from time to time by Madras Acts 2 of 1932	 2 of 1934	 11 of 1935	 13 of 1938	 2 of 1939	 15 of 1951	 28 of 1943	 8 of 1946 and 23 of 1950. As a result of these amending Acts a large number of the provisions of the Madras Elementary Education Act	 1920	 have been modified or repealed. Section 41 which provided for the recognition of elementary schools and section 42 which provided for admission of elementary schools to grant in aid	 stood repealed by Act 2 of 1939. By section 56 the State Government was authorized to make rules not inconsistent with the Act to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act	 and by sub section (2) of section 56 it was provided : "In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions they may make rules (f) laying down the registers	 statements	 reports	 returns	 budgets and other information to be maintained or furnished by local authorities	 by panchayats	 and by managers of elementary schools under private management and the time within which any statement	 report	 return	 budget or other information shall be furnished; (h) declaring the conditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid." 10 Rules were framed under the Act for the first time by the Govt. of Madras in 1922. These rules provided for the grant of recognition and aid to elementary schools	 and for prescribing conditions of service and qualifications of teachers and the authority of the District Educational Inspector and higher authorities. The provisions relating to the recognition of the elementary schools and admission of primary elementary schools to grantsin aid were	 as stated earlier	 repealed by Act 2 of 1939	 but the power to frame rules	 especially for the purpose of declaring the conditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid	 was retained. It also appears that even after Act 2 of 1939 which repealed Ch. IV was enacted	 rules relating to the power of the Educational authorities were republished on August 29	 1949	 and Part II of the Rules dealt with matters relating to recognition of schools and grant in aid. In the view of the High Court	 after repeal of sections 41 & 42 of the Act	 those rules could only have effect as executive instructions. On this question it appears that there has been some difference of opinion in the High Courts. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Chandrasekharan Nair and others vs Secretary to Govt. of Kerala and others	(1) approving their earlier judgment in Joseph Valamangalam vs State of Kerala(1) held that the rules contained in Part II headed "Rules for grant of recognition and aid to Elementary Schools" framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act	 1920	 were mere executive directions having no statutory authority. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Jalli Venkatswamy V. The Correspondent	 Kasturiba Gandhi Basic Senior School kenetipuram(3) was apparently of the view that these rules had statutory operation. The High Court of Madras in A. Ramaswami Ayyangar vs State of Madras (Education Department)(1) held that the rules were administrative and not statutory in their effect	 and the management could dispense with the services of its employee (a teacher) after giving three months ' notice in the usual course	 without assigning any special reason	 and the employee could not invoke the aid of the Court for an order to quash the proceedings of the management dispensing with his services on the ground of non compliance with those rules. (1) A. I. R. 1961 Kerala 303. (3) A. I. R. (2) A. I. R. 1958 Kerala 290. (4) A. I. R. 11 In this case	 the question whether an. order made by the Educational authorities in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by rules is liable to be enforced by action in a civil court at the instance of s person affected by the action of the school authorities falls to be determined. It is unfortunate that counsel have not been able to place before us the Act	 and the rules in force at the material time. Counsel appearing at the Bar are also unable to inform us about the authority in the exercise of which the rules were originally framed and were reissued after the repeal of Ch. IV of the Act. Before we can decide this appeal	 we must have before us a copy of the relevant rules in force at the material time	 and evidence about the authority under which the rules were framed and continued	 the sanction behind the enforcement of the rules	 if any	 and the manner in which the rules were being administered by the Madras Government and thereafter by the State of Mysore when the District of South Kanara merged with that State under the States Reorganization Act	 1956. We direct that the papers be sent down to the Trial Court and that the Trial Court do report to us after taking evidence on the questions set out earlier. The Trial Court may	 if so advised	 issue a summons to the Educational authorities of the State of Madras or take other steps to ensure production of the documents bearing on the questions on which report is directed to be made. Enquiry may especially directed to the question whether the State of Madras	 or the state of Mysore	 have on any earlier occasion enforced the orders passed by the Educational authorities in appeals and the power in exercise of which they have been enforced. The Trial Court to submit the report within six months from the date on which the papers reach that Court. The judgment of the Court after receipt of the report was delivered by Shelat	 J. Prior to June 1	 1955	 the appellant was working as the Head Mistress in the respondent school. On April 22	 1955	 the management of the School served certain charges on her and called upon her to reply to the same. Her reply was found to be unsatisfactory	 and thereupon	 by an order passed by the management on June 1	 1955 she was reduced to the position of an Assistant Teacher. She thereafter filed an appeal against the management before the District Educational Officer	 South Kanara. Her appeal was rejected. A further appeal by her before the Divisional Inspector of Schools	 Coimbatore	 succeeded and the Divisional Inspector directed the management to restore her to her original position as the Head Mistress. The management declined to do so and she filed the suit from which this appeal arises. 12 The suit was on the basis: that since the school had obtained recognition and grant in aid under the Madras Elementary Education Act	 VIII of 1920	 and the rules made therefore by the Government	 it was under the supervision	first of the Education Department of the Madras Government	and. after reorganization of States	 that of the Mysore Government. According to her	 the Act and the said rules were binding on the school and gave her a right to enforce against the management the said order of the Divisional Inspector. The order reducing	 her to the position of an assistant teacher stood vacated by the order of the Divisional Inspector and the respondent school	 therefore	 was bound to comply with that order and restore her to the position of the Head Mistress	 The management contested the suit	 maintaining that the order of reduction passed by it was within its power	 that there was nothing in the Act or the rules which warranted any interference with its right of internal management of the school and gave no right to the appellant to enforce in	 a court of law the order passed by the Divisional Inspector	 that order being only a matter between the Education Department and the management. The Trial Court accepted the school 's contention and dismis sed the suit. In an appeal against that dismissal	 the District Judge took a different view and held that the order of the Department was legally enforceable by the appellant since it was passed in an appeal provided by the said rules. He set aside the dismissal of the suit and passed a decree in favour of the appellant. On a second appeal by the school	 the High Court went into the legislative history of the Act and on an examination of the rules accepted the contention of the management that the relations hip between the parties was that of master and servant and no mandatory injunction could be issued directing restoration of the appellant as the Head Mistress as that would be tantamount to specific performance of a contract of personal service not permissible under section 21(b) of . The High Court also held that the rules	 under which the appellant had filed the said appeal and the said order was made	 were only administrative instructions by the Government to its educational officers and not statutory rules which would give rise to a remedy enforceable at law at the instance of an employee of a school aggrieved against its management. Against this judgment	 the appellant obtained special leave from this Court and filed this appeal. The appeal first came up for hearing in March 1970 before Shah	 J. (as he then was) and Grover	 J. Not satisfied with the record before them	 the learned Judges postponed the hearing of the appeal and called for a report from the Trial Court on certain matters found wanting in the record	 In accordance with that order	 the Trial Court took additional evidence	 both oral and 13 documentary	 and dispatched its. report along with a copy of the rules	 the Madras Gazette in which they were published and certain other materials. From; those materials as also from the judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in Rev. Fr. Joseph vs Kerala(1) it is possible to	 trace the charges which the Act and the rules have undergone from time to time. Such a legislative	 history of the Act is important to a certain extent as it throws light on the character of the rules and the power under which they were framed from time to time. Counsel for the appellant urged that in spite of the changes made from time to time in the Act	 the rules with which we are concerned in this appeal have retained their original character of being statutory rules. 	 They must	 therefore	 be	 held to have been made under section 56 and particularly under cl. (h) of its sub section (2)	 which empowers the Government to make rules in respect. of recognition as an elementary school and the aid which the Government gives to it from public funds. The argument was that despite the changes in the Act	 particularly the deletion of certain provisions of the Act	 to which we shall presently come	 the definition of an 'elementary school ' in the Act takes in schools recognised by the Director of Public Instruction of the State Government	 and since such a recognised school is the essence of the scheme of elementary education provided by the Act	 the rules have to be treated as statutory rules made	under	 cl. (h) of section 56(2) which is still retained in the Act. Before we proceed to. consider these contentions it is necessary to examine briefly the Act and its legislative history. The Act was	 first passed as Madras Act	 VIII of 1920	 and then contained seven chapters with 56 sections. It underwent several changes. from	 time to time	 and particularly when the Madras Elementary Education (Amendment Act. II of 1939 was passed by which Chapter II	 IV	 VI and section 55 in Ch. were deleted. The Act was passed with the object of making better provisions for elementary education and envisaged imparting of such education through elementary schools	 including those run by private managements	 but recognised by the Government through its Education Department. Sec. 3(vi) of the Act defines such an elementary school as one recognised by the Director of Public Instruction or by such authority as may be empowered by him in that behalf. 56 authorized the Government to make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act "to carry out all or any of the purposes (1) A. I. R. 1958 Kerala 290. 14 of this Act"	 and in particular cl. (h) of sub section (2) for "declaring the conditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid." Ch. II	 before its deletion in 1939	 provided for the constitution of District Educational Councils	 their duties	 their funds	 budget and audit. VI	 by sections 41 to 43 in it	 dealt with recognition of schools and admission of private managed schools to grant in aid. These chapters	 as stated earlier	 were repealed in 1939. The Rules were first framed in 1922 under section 56 and contained provisions regarding recognition and aid. These Rules were clearly statutory rules. Curiously	 although Chs. 11 and IV were deleted in 1939	 cl. (h) of section 56(2) was allowed to remain in the Act. It appears that the rules regulating recognition and aid were framed in 1922 because so long as Chs. 11 and IV were in the Statute	 they had to be made to implement the purposes set out in those chapters. But with the repeal of those chapters	 those Rules could not be continued as they could no longer be regarded as rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act as section 56(1) enjoins The Madras Government appears to have appreciated such a re sult arising from the repeal of those chapters and therefore	 reframed the rules and published them in the Gazette of August 29	 1930. The new Rules were divided into two parts. The first part contained rules dealing with matters provided for in sections 3(i)(v) and (viii)	 section 36(1) and (2)	 section 44	 section 48	 section 50(iii) and (v) and section 51. Part II Rules did not set out or refer to any of the sections in the Act as Part I Rules did. The reason was that rules in Part 11 dealt with recognition and aid in respect of which there were	 after the 1939 amendment	 no corresponding provisions in the Act. It is also of some significance that when published in 1939 the rules in Part I were headed "Rules framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act	 1920"	 while the rules contained separately in Part II were not given any such heading or title. Further	 it appears that when these Part II Rules were published in August 1939 there was no previous publication of them as required by section 56(1) of the Act. I in Part II Rules deals with recognition. The power to grant or withdraw such a recognition is conferred on the officers of the Education Department. Under r. 5	 applications for recognition of schools or additional standards in such schools are to be made to the District Educational Officer. An appeal is provided against his decision before the Divisional Officer. The rules then lay down certain requirements on the basis of which recognition would be given or withheld. Rule 13(1) provides	 inter alia	 for the maintenance of a teacher 's service register by the manager of the school specifying therein the terms of service under which a teacher is recruited. The register would include 15 particulars showing whether a teacher is appointed temporarily or on probation or on a permanent basis	 his salary	 the scale of pay	 if any	 etc. Under the rule	 the manager has to get the register countersigned by the Deputy Inspector of Schools. The rule further provides that no qualified teacher can be appointed on ;a temporary basis or for a stipulated period. All appointments to permanent posts have initially to be made on probation and on expire of the probation period the teacher would be deemed to be permanent. (2) of r. 13 provides that no teacher can leave the service of a school without giving three months ' notice	 or three months ' salary in lieu thereof. Under sub cl. (ii) of cl. (2) of that rule	 the management has the power to terminate the service of any member of the staff	 whether permanent	 temporary or probationary	 without any notice on the grounds set out therein. But	 three months ' notice would be required if the termination of service is for reasons other than those set out in sub cl. (ii)	 e.g.	 for wailful neglect of duty	 serious misconduct	 gross insubordination	 incompetence etc. The first provision to sub cl. (ii) requires	 however	 that before such notice of termination is given the teacher has to be informed in writing of the charges against him and a reasonable opportunity to be heard has to be given to him. The second proviso to that subclause requires the management to consult the Deputy Inspector and obtain his approval about the propriety of the action proposed against a teacher. The rule then provides : "When	 on a teacher 's appeal	 the District Educational Officer orders reinstatement	 the management shall forthwith reinstate him within 10 days of the receipt of the orders	 notwithstanding a further appeal submitted or proposed to be submitted by the management to the Divisional Inspector and shall inform in writing the Deputy Inspector of Schools and the District Educational Officer of the fact of having done so. Failure to comply with such orders of the District Educational Officer may entail action against the management under rule 14 below. " Sub cl. (vi) of r. 13(2) provides for appeals	 first	 before the District Educational Officer	 and then	 before the Divisional Inspector of Schools. Under r. 14	 the Director of Public Instructions has the power to declare	 after enquiry	 a teacher to be unfit for employment in a recognised school. Under r. 14 A	 he can refuse or withdraw recognition from a school in which is employed a teacher whom he has declared to be unfit	 or when the school is under the management of a person declared unfit by him. Recognition can also ' be withdrawn under rr. 26 to 28	 28 A and 28 B on the grounds set out therein. 11 of Part II Rules contain rules in regard to aid	 such as teaching grants	 maintenance grant etc.	 16 and Ch. III contains rules with regard	 to grants for school buildings	 building sites and play grounds. II and IV of the Act	 which contained provisions for recognition and aid	 having been repealed	 these rules	 reissued and published afresh in August 1939	 cannot be said to be rules "to		 carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act"	 as provided by section 56(1). No doubt	 cl. (h) of sub section (2) of section 56 was still retained even after Chs. 11 and IV were deleted	 and therefore	 the Government could perhaps claim to have the power to frame statutory rules "declaring the conditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid". But even if the Government were to claim to have framed rules under the sanction contained in cl. (h) of section 56(2)	 such rules would not satisfy the condition precedent for such rule making	 namely	 that they can be made only "to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act". 	 Such rules	 therefore	 even if made	 would not be rules made under section 56. Besides	 the fact is that when Part 11 Rules were published in the gazette of August 28	 1939	 they were not claimed to have been made under the power reserved to the Government under section 56. If they were claimed to have been so made	 they would	 firstly	 have been pre published as required by section 56(1)	 and secondly	 the Government would not have made the distinction between Part I and Part II Rules	 which it did	 by giving a title to the former	 namely	 that they were made under the Act	 and omitting to give such a title to the latter. These facts support the contention of the respondent school that Part 11 Rules cannot be said to be statutory rules framed under section 56	 although the power to make such rules is still retained with the Government by reason of cl. (h) being still there in section 56(2). Ordinarily	 the relations between the management of an ele mentary school and the teachers employed in it would be governed by the terms of the contract of employment and the law of master and servant in the absence of any statute controlling or abrogating such a contract of employment and providing to the contrary. The mere fact that such a school has obtained recognition and aid from the education department would not mean that the relationship between its management and its employees has ceased to be governed by the contracts of employment under which the employees are recruited and by the law of master and servant unless there is some provision in the Act overriding that law as one finds in statutes dealing with industrial disputes and similar other matters. There is in fact no such provision in the Act and none was pointed out to us. The result is that the relations between the management and the teachers even in a recognised elementary school have to be regarded as being governed by the contracts of employment 17 and the terms and conditions contained therein. Part II Rules	 which cannot be regarded as having the status of statutory rules made under section 56	 cannot be said to have the effect of controlling the relations between the management of a school and its teachers or the terms and conditions of employment of such teachers or abrogating the law of master and servant which ordinarily would govern those relations. But it cannot also be gainsaid that as the Government has the power	 to admit schools to recognition and grants in aid	 it can	 de hors the Act	 lay down conditions under which it would grant recognition and aid. To achieve uniformity and certainty in the exercise of such executive power and to avoid discrimination	 the Government would have to frame rules which	 however	 would be in the form of administrative instructions to its officers dealing with the matters of recognition and aid. If such rules were to lay down conditions	 the Government can insist that satisfaction of such conditions would be condition precedent to obtaining recognition and aid and that a breach or non compliance of such conditions would entail either the denial or withdrawal of recognition and aid. The management of school	 therefore	 would commit a breach or non compliance of the conditions laid down in the rules on pain of deprivation of recognition and aid. The rules thus govern the terms on which the Government would grant recognition and aid and the Government can enforce those rules upon the management. But the enforcement of such rules is a matter between the Government and the management	 and a third party	 such as a	 teacher aggrieved by some order of the management	 cannot derive from the rules any enforceable right against the management oh the ground of a breach or noncompliance of any of the rules. To illustrate the point	 suppose the management of a school were to terminate the service of a teacher after giving one month 's notice	 or one month 's salary in lieu thereof in 'accordance with the contract of employment between the feather and the management	 such a termination would be valid. But the 'Government can insist that since its rules provide for three months ' 'notice	 the management cannot terminate the service of a teacher by giving only one month 's notice. Though in the absence of 'statutory provision having the effect of controlling or superseding the contract of employment agreed to between the parties	 the termination would in law be valid	 nevertheless	 the Government can withdraw	 under Part II Rules	 the recognition and aid it has given to the school since its rules governing recognition and aid were riot complied with. But that does not mean that Part II Rules confer upon a third party	 viz.	 an aggrieved employee of a school	 any remedy enforceable at law in the event of the management of an elementary school refusing to comply with these 18 rules which	 inter alia	 enjoin upon a school to abide by the directions given thereunder by the education officers of the Government named therein. in the absence of any provision in the Act governing the relations between the management and a teacher employed by it or controlling the terms of employment of such a teacher and Part II Rules not being statutory rules	 the appellant could not be said to have had a cause of action for enforcing the directions given by the Divisional Inspector to restore her as the Head Mistress in the appeal filed by her. Appeals against orders passed by the management against a teacher are provided for under r. 19 so as to enforce the satisfaction of conditions under which recognition and aid would be granted or withdrawn	 and not for regulating	 as between the teacher and the management	 the relations of master .and servant arising under the contract of employment. In Rev. Fr. Joseph vs Kerala	(1) the Kerala High Court had to consider the question of these rules being statutory or not as one of	 the schools	 whose writ petition among others it was trying	 was governed by the Madras Elementary Education Act	 1920 and the rules made	 by the Madras Government. After tracing legislative		 history of the Act	 as also of the rules	 the High Court held that Part II Rules did not have any statutory origin and were	 therefore	 only administrative instructions by the Government to its educational officers	 and therefore	 did not vest in the school any	 statutory right for grant in aid. This decision was later approved by a full bench of that High Court in Chandrasekharan Nair vs Secretary to Government of Kerala(2) where that Court once again held that Part II Rules were administrative rules. Similarly	 in A. Ramaswami Ayyangar V. Madras	(3) the High Court of Madras negatived the contention that these rules	 dealing with recognition and aid	 could be invoked by an	 employee against the management of a private elementary school to enforce a right allegedly arising under the rules. The High Court held that the rules were	 not statutory 	 rules	 and that therefore. they could not enlarge the scope of the contract of employment between such an employee of	 the school and the management embodied in the school register	 and that the rules affected the relations between the school and the Government	 and not a third party. In Govindaswami vs Andhra	(1) a learned Single Judge of the Andhra High Court	 took the view that the powers and functions of the State 's educational officers under these rules in relation to recognition a ad aid were quasi judicial and held that these rules were Statutory (1) A. 1. R. 1958 Kerala 290. (3) 1962(1) M. L. J. 269. (2) A. I. R. 1961 Kerala 303. (4) 1962(1) An. W. R. 263. 19 rules. But this view was on an assumption that even Part II Rules were made under section 56(2)(h) of the Act. Such an assumption was made without any enquiry whether they were so made and without taking into account the fact of the deletion of Chs. II and IV from the Act in 1939	 and its impact on the rule making power of the Government	 the re issuance of the rules thereafter and the distinction made by the Madras Government itself between Part I and Part 11 Rules in the headings which it gave to those two parts. The more recent view of the Andhra High Court	 however	 is reflected in Moss vs The Management(1) where a Division Bench of that High Court has held that Part 11 Rules relating to recognition and aid are not statutory rules but are only executive instructions	 and therefore	 are not legally enforceable in a court of law. On the reasons aforesaid	 the suit filed by the appellant must be held to be misconceived	 and consequently	 the High Court righty dismissed her suit. The appeal fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case	 we decline to make any order as to costs. V. P. section Appeal dismissed. (1) 1970(II) An. W. R. 157.

The appellant	 who was working as the Headmistress in the respondent school was reduced to the position of an Assistant Teacher. Her appeal to the District Educational Officer under. 13(2)(vi) of Part 11 of the rules published by the State Government in the Gazette on August 29 1939	 was rejected	 but on a further appeal by her to the Divisional Inspector of Schools	 the management of the school was directed to restore her to the position of Headmistress. As the management did not do so	 she filed a suit for the issue of a mandatory injunction to the respondent and for damages. On the question whether the rules under which the appeal was filed and the order was made were only administrative instructions by the Government to its educational officers and not statutory rules which would give rise to a remedy enforceable at law at the instance of an employee of a school aggrieved against the management	 HELD: (1) Section 56 of the Madras Elementary Education Act	 1920	 authorized the Government to make rules to 'carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act '	 and under sub section 2(h) for declaring the conditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid	 and rules were framed in 1922. The Act was amended by Amendment Act of 1939	 by which Chs. 11	 IV	 VI and section 55 were deleted. The existing rules therefore could not be continued as they could not be regarded as rules for 'carrying out the purposes of the Act. ' Hence they were reframed and published in the Gazette in 1939 in two parts. [13F	 H; 14D]. (a) The first part contained rules dealing with matters provided for in the various sections. The rules in Part II could not refer to any section because	 they related to matters such as recognition and aid dealt with in sections and Chapters which were repealed by the 1939 amendment	 and hence	 Part II rules did not set out or refer to any section of the Act. [14E]. (b) The rules in Part I were headed 'Rules framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act	 1920 '	 but the Rules in Part 11 were not given any such heading or title. [14F]. (c) There was no previous publication of the rules in Part 11 as required by section 56(1). [14F G]. (d) The rules in Part 11 could not be claimed to have been made under section 56(2) (h) dealing with the conditions subject to which schools may be admitted to recognition or aid	 because they did not satisfy the condition precedent for such rule making	 namely	 that they could be made only 'to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act '	 [16D F]. 7 Therefore	 the rules in Part 11 could not be said to be statutory rules framed under section 56. [16F] (2) But the Government had the power de hors the Act to lay down conditions under which it could recognise and grant aid. To achieve uniformity and certainty in the exercise of such executive power and to avoid discrimination	 Government could frame rules which would however only be administrative instructions to its officers. [17B D] The rules in the present case	 relating to recognition and aid	 thus governed the terms on which Government would grant recognition and aid and Government could enforce the rules on the management by the denial or withdrawal of such recognition or aid	 if there was a breach or noncompliance of the conditions laid down in the rules. But the enforcement of such rules was a matter between the Government and the management	 and a third party	 such as a teacher aggrieved by same order of the management	 could not derive from the rules any enforceable right against the management on the grounds of a breach of or non compliance with any of the rules. [17D E; 19B C] (3) The relation between the management of the elementary school and the teachers employed in it would be governed by the terms of the contract of employment and the law of master and servant in the absence of any statute or statutory rules controlling or abrogating such a contract and providing to the contrary. [16F G] The result is that the relations between the managements and the teachers even in a recognised elementary school have to be regarded as being governed by the contracts of employment and the terms and conditions contained therein. Part II Rules	 which cannot be regarded 	is having the status of statutory rules made under section 56 cannot be said to have the effect of controlling the relations between the management of a school and its teachers. [16H; 17A B] Therefore	 the appellant could not be said to have had a cause of action for enforcing the directions given by the Divisional Inspector to restore her as the Headmistress in the appeal filed by her. Appeals against orders passed by the management against a teacher are provided for under r. 13 so as to enforce the satisfaction of conditions under which recognition and aid would be granted or withdrawn	 and not for regulating as between the teacher and the management	 the relations of master and servant arising under the contract of employment. [18B C] Chandrasekharan Nair vs Secretary to Government of Kerala	 	 A. Ramaswami Ayyangar vs State of Madras	 	 and Moss. vs The Management	 	 approved. Govindaswami vs Andhra	 	 overruled