JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. Heard Sri B.L Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri V.K. Singh for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this petition is being disposed of at this stage.
2. The brief facts of this case are that in the year 1988, the petitioner was appointed as Head Master of the institution run by the respondent No. 3 for which due approval was accorded by the respondent No. 1, District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jhansi on 31.3.1994. In May, 2001, the respondent No. 3, Committee of Management, Shree Shanker Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jauri Bujurg, Jhansi, stopped the payment of salary to the petitioner against which the petitioner approached the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari and even on the directions of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the salary was not paid to the petitioner. Thereafter vide order dated 20.4.2002, the respondent No. 3 placed the petitioner under suspension, which order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 19474 of 2002 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 13.5.2002 with a direction to the respondents to ensure service of charge-sheet on the petitioner and to complete the enquiry within a period of three months thereafter. However, by means of the impugned order dated 26.10.2002, the services of the petitioner have been terminated by the respondent No. 3, Committee of Management, Shri Shanker Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jauri Bujurg, Jhansi, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was submitted that under Rule 15 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, it has been provided that no Head Master or Assistant Teacher of a recognised school shall be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or even served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer. It has thus, been submitted that since the impugned order dated 26.10.2002, passed by the respondent No. 3, Committee of Management, Sree Shanker Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jauri Bujurg. Jhansi is without obtaining the prior approval of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, the same is liable to be set aside having been passed in violation of Rule 15 of the 1978 Rules.
4. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, has submitted that the Committee of Management had submitted the papers before the respondent No. 1 for prior approval on 4.10.2002, nearly three weeks before passing of the impugned order and since the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari did not grant any approval within a reasonable time, the approval should be deemed to have been granted.
5. In view of the mandatory provisions for grant of prior approval before even serving a notice for termination of service of a Head Master, the contention of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 that approval would be deemed to have been granted as the papers had already been sent to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari cannot be accepted. Since, admittedly the mandatory provisions have not been followed in my view, the impugned order dated 26.10.2002 passed by the respondent No. 3, Committee of Management, Shree Shanker Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jauri Bujurg, Jhansi, is liable to be quashed.
6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.10.2002 is quashed. However, it shall be open to the Committee of Management, Shree Sanker Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jauri Bujurg, Jhansi to pass appropriate orders after obtaining prior approval of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jhansi, Needless to say, it is expected that the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Jhansi shall pass appropriate orders expeditiously in case, if the respondent No. 3 approaches the said authority for grant of approval.