JUDGMENT Shishir Kumar, J.
1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order of termination of May, 1990 and further prayer for appointments of respondent Nos. 4 to 12 and to its approval by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) be quashed and further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to work as teachers.
2. The fact arising out of the present writ petition is that petitioners were appointed and working as Assistant Teachers in Jain Basic Primary Vidyalaya attached to Jain Inter College, Rampur. The primary institution is being run in the same premises and the Management is also the same. Earlier, it was not in grant-in-aid but by letter dated 21.10.1989, written by the Direction of Education to all the District Inspector of Schools, which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, inspection was made by the District Inspector of Schools, the recommendations, were made and the Director of Education proceeded to determine as to how many and who should be granted grant-in-aid and the District Inspector of Schools requested the Management to submit the seniority list of the teachers of the Schools and on the basis of the aforesaid list, the District Inspector of Schools approved the appointment of the petitioners and imposed certain conditions giving grant-in-aid. A copy of the order has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. In spite of the aforesaid fact when the salary was not being paid, then a representation was filed before the District Inspector of Schools but suddenly an order, which is impugned in the writ petition, that is Annexure 4 to the writ petition was passed by which the services of the petitioners have been terminated only saying that the appointments of the petitioners were temporary and for a session of 1989 and 1990 and thereafter on 30th June, 1990, there was no necessity of the services of the petitioners. Against the order the petitioners have approached this Court.
3. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, vide its order dated 24.5.1990 issued notice and it has been stated that the services of the petitioners will not be dispensed with till the trained teachers become available for the appointment to the post held by the petitioners.
4. Counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the Standing Counsel. Committee of Management and the private respondents. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners are that under the law, the prior approval is necessary as the same has not been taken, therefore, the order of terminating the services of the petitioners is liable to be quashed only on this ground alone. The petitioners have placed reliance upon the provisions of Intermediate Education Act. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (I) Alld. ESC 403, Daya Shankar Tewari v. Principal, R.D.B.M. Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Neogaon, Mirzapur and Ors., in which it has been held that in view of Section 16-G(3) and the Regulations 31 termination from service by the Principal of the institution without prior approval the District Inspector of Schools is bad, Section 16-G of the U.P. Education Act, 1921 clearly provides for approval of Inspector in case of discharge, removal and dismissal from service. Further reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of this Court reported "in 2000 (1) Alld. ESC 173, Sri Pati Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors.. In this case also this Court has held that the termination of an Assistant Teacher of unaided recognized Junior High School, appointed in permanent capacity without any approval of Basic Education Officer, is not permissible. Further reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1012 of 1999, decided on 4th February, 2000, Principal, Rastriya Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools. The aforesaid case was regarding the termination of a peon, that is, Class IV employee. The Division Bench of this Court has held that the prior approval is necessary before dismissal of a Class IV employee. The petitioner has further submitted that in view of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, Rule 15 is the similar provision as under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Section 16-G (3) (a). Rule 15 and Section 16-G(3) (a) are being reproduced below :--
16-G(3)(a) No Principal, Headmaster or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments, or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. The decision of the Inspector shall be communicated within the period to be prescribed by regulations.
15. Termination of services.--No Headmaster or Assistant Teacher of a recognized school may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjects to any Institution in emoluments or served with notice of termination of services except with the prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer.
5. It has been submitted that in view of the aforesaid fact, prior approval was necessary. As admittedly, prior approval before terminating the services of the petitioners has not been obtained, therefore, the order of termination is invalid in law as no prior approval has been obtained under the aforesaid Rules by the District Basic Education Officer.
6. The writ petition was entertained and the notices were issues. It appears that in the meantime certain teachers were appointed and the approval was granted by the respondent No. 4 as such, by way of an amendment, the respondent Nos. 4 to 12 have been impleaded as respondents. The respondent Nos. 4 to 12 have filed a counter-affidavit and has stated that the appointment of the answering respondents have already been approved and they are working on the post, therefore, the appointment of the answering respondents cannot be undone as immediately after the order of termination, the petitioners are not working in the institution. It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the respondents Nos. 4 to 12 are working from 1996 and as the appointment has already been approved and they arc being paid salary, therefore, there is no action to quashed the order.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for the respondents.
8. After perusal of the record, it is clear that no approval as required under Rule 15 was obtained while terminating the services of the petitioners and the approval was granted in case of the petitioners immediately after the primary section has come under the grant-in-aid. Though the approval order passed by District Inspector of Schools, Rampur, shows that the financial approval has been given temporarily with a condition that in future only the trained teachers may be appointed had the services of the petitioners can only be terminated after giving one-month notice. Though, from the termination letter it is not clear whether any notice as stated in the order of approval, has been given to the petitioners or not. In spite of the order of this Court, the petitioners have not worked from the date of termination till today and the respondent Nos. 4 to 12 have already been appointed and the appointment of the respondent Nos. 4 to 12 have already been approved and they arc working, therefore, in may view it will be appropriate that the matter by remitted back to the respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate orders regarding compliance of Rule 15. The respondent No. 2 will also give an opportunity to the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 4 to 12 and the Committee of Management and after due verification on the basis of the evidence on record will pass detailed and reasoned order according to law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.
9. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.