Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77423 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6822 of 2016 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Shukla,Sanjeev Singh,Vijay Kumar Singh(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- Ali Hasan,Awadhesh Kumar Saxena,C.S.C.,Shiv Nath Singh(Senior Adv.) Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. The petitioner is an assistant teacher appointed in fourth respondent's institution. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur with a consequential direction to make payment of salary to the petitioner regularly together with arrears with effect from July, 2012. 3. The issue involved in the present writ petition is that when certain disputes arose between the petitioner and the fourth respondent- Management, the fourth respondent stopped payment of salary from July, 2012 onwards. Questioning the said action, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition no. 11306 of 2013, which was disposed of directing the authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders. Based on the abovesaid directions of this Court, the third respondent has passed the impugned order on 30.11.2015 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's services were terminated by the management. 4. Based on the facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Management neither issued any charge sheet by initiating disciplinary proceedings nor conducted any inquiry and no termination order was served on the petitioner. Hence, he has not challenged the termination order. According to the petitioner, even if the fourth respondent had passed any order terminating the services of the petitioner, it would have come into operation only after approval granted by the respondent no.2 as per Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Section 21 of the Act reads as follows: "21. The Management shall not, except with the prior approval of the Board, dismiss any teacher or remove him from service, or serve on him any notice of removal from service, or reduce him in rank or reduce his emoluments or with hold his increment for any period (whether temporarily or permanently) and any such thing done without such prior approval shall be void." 5. According to Section 21 of the Act, the Management has to pass any order either suspension or removal with the prior approval/ permission from the Board. If any permission or approval is not obtained, the said orders shall be void. In the instant case, though the respondents have filed their counter affidavit but with regard to the approval of termination, it is silent. 6. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court has passed the following order on 08.04.2025, which reads as follows: "Learned Standing Counsel is directed to obtain instructions whether the termination order has been approved by the Board or District Inspector of Schools, as the case may be." 7. To comply with the said order, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents, on instructions, submitted that the respondents have not passed any order approving the termination of the services of the petitioner. Under the said circumstances as held by this Court in Writ-A No. 7642 of 2020 as also the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 76 of 2025, the impugned order passed by the respondent i.e. District Inspector of Schools is contrary to the Rules. As held by the Division Bench in Special Appeal no.76 of 2025, the approval is mandatory in view of Section 16-G (7) of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Even in the said special appeal, the question came up before this Court for consideration is as to whether the District Inspector of Schools rejected the claim of the petitioner therein for release of salary without passing any order under Section 16-G (7) of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or not. 8. Considering the rationale held in the said special appeal even in the instant case, the respondents have not passed any order complying with the mandatory provision i.e. Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982, amended provision of Section 16-G (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In the said circumstances, impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 30.11.2015 is set aside, remanding the matter to the authorities once again to consider the case of the petitioner for release of his salary within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Gurpreet Singh (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad