HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 14114 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Since, the matter is being decided at the admission stage, notice to opposite party no. 3 is hereby dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 and perused the records. The present writ petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 26-09- 2025, whereby the proposal of dismissal of the services of the opposite party no. 3, has been disapproved. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the opposite party no. 3 was suspended, on 05-02-205 and the matter was sent for approval of the suspension order to the office of the District Basic Education Officer on 06-02-2025, wherein the finding is recorded that the said suspension order was passed without following the due procedure, provided under Rule 15 of The Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools(Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules,1978, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1978') as amended in the year,2019. Amended Rule 15 of the 'Rules, 1978' is quoted hereinunder:- "15. Disciplinary proceeding - (1) Except with the written approval of District Basic Education Officer, suspension of Headmaster or Assistant teacher of a recognized Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Madhav Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. C/M, Dharma Rajvanti Kanya Junior High School, Ambedkar Nagar Thru. Manager Bhojnath And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education, Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) school may not be effective after 60 days. (2) No Headmaster or Assistant teacher of a recognized school may be removed or dismissed from service or subjected to any approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer. Provided that in the case of the Headmaster or an Assistant Teacher of a minority institution the approval of the District Basic Education Officer shall not be necessary." Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that in Rule 15 of the Amended Rules, 1978, there is no such provision that the Committee of Management prior passing the order of suspension, will take any approval from the District Basic Education Officer. He further argued that prior reaching to the conclusion, the District Basic Education Officer, has given his finding, on the basis of discussion that disapproval is not justifiable and in the conclusion clause, the proposal/resolution of the Committee of Management for dismissal of services of the opposite party no. 3, has been disapproved. He added that the order itself is contradictory and it shows that there is no proper application of mind by the District Basic Education Officer concerned. He further submitted that the prejudice is caused to the Committee of Management by the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State has tried to save the order dated 26-09-2025 by contending that the order may not be happily worded, but, infact, the same has rightly been passed in consonance with Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions of Service of Teachers) (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2019. He further submitted that the petitioners have not taken approval after the suspension order was passed and infact the order of termination of the opposite party no. 3 was passed without taking approval on the suspension order and therefore, the whole disciplinary proceedings vitiate in the eyes of law, thus, the District Basic Education Officer has rightly disapproved the resolution with respect to termination of the services of the opposite party no. 3. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and WRIA No. 14114 of 2025 2 after perusal of records, it emerges that vide the order dated 26-09-2025, the resolution of the Committee of Management for termination of the services of the opposite party no. 3 has been disapproved. When this court examines the order dated 26-09-2025, it reveals that the Committee of Management, sent a resolution while terminating the services of the opposite parties no. 3 and while discussion in the order impugned herein, it is mentioned in the finding clause that the disapproval of the termination of the services of the opposite party no. 3, would not be proper, whereas in the conclusion clause, the resolution of termination of the services of the opposite party no.3, has been disapproved, which itself goes contrary. This court finds that the District Basic Education Officer, has also taken the fact into consideration, while passing the impugned order that prior approval is required while passing the suspension order, whereas the Rules,2019, do not say so. In this view of the matter, this court finds that there is totally non application of mind of the District Basic Education Officer while passing the order dated 26-09-2025, impugned herein. Consequently, the order dated 26-09-2025 is hereby quashed. The District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar is given liberty to pass a fresh order on the resolution of the Committee of Management, whereby the services of the opposite party no. 3 have been terminated within the period of four weeks, from the date of this order, while affording opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is hereby allowed. December 8, 2025 AKS WRIA No. 14114 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench