JUDGMENT W. Broome, J. - This writ petition filed by Mrs. Beulah Cutting challenges an order dated 29-6-1962 of the Regional Appellate Committee (Women), established under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, holding that the termination of the services of the petitioner as Principal of the Amar Chand Girls Higher Secondary School, Atrauli (district Aligarh) on the expiry of her period of one years probation was valid, even though the prior approval of the Regional Inspectress of Girls School had not been obtained. 2. Mrs. Cutting was appointed Principal of the said school on one years probation in October 1960 (vide Annexure 1 to the petition) and she assumed charge of her duties on 28-10-1960. On 26-9-61 she was served with a notice (annexure No. 2) informing her that the following resolution had been passed by the Managing Committee : - "Resolved unanimously that Mrs. Cutting was on probation till 27th October, 1961. She is not confirmed. Her services will not be required with effect from 27th Oct, 1961." 3. On this the petitioner made a representation to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools of the Agra Region praying that her services had been illegally terminated, the order having been passed without the prior approval of the Inspectress; and on 31-10-1961 the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools informed the management of the Atrauli Girls School that the notice of termination served on the petitioner was not valid, and that the petitioner still continued to be on the staff of the institution as lady Principal. Thereafter, the management of the school filed an appeal before the Regional Appellate Committee, which on 29-6-1962 passed the impugned order reversing the decision of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and upholding the validity of the notice served on the petitioner by the Managing Committee of the School. 4. Mr. K. P. Agarwal, appearing for the petitioner, has raised two points in support of the petition : (a) that under Sec. 16-G (3) (a) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 the services of the petitioner could not be terminated, except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector of Schools; and (b) that the appeal filed by the management before the Regional Appellate Committee was incompetent, since the order of the Inspectress that was appealed against could not be said to have been passed under Sec. 16-G (3) (b). 5. 5. Sec. 16-G (3) (a) runs as follows:- "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." 6. It is clear from this that if the notice Annexure 2 served on the petitioner amounts to a notice of termination within the meaning of the above quoted clause, it must be invalid because no prior approval in writing had been obtained from the Inspectress of Schools. 7. The contention of Mr. S.N. Kacker, appearing for the School Management, is that the mere, conveyance of information to a probationer that his or her services will not be required after the expiry of the probationary period does not amount to termination of services. It is to be noted, however, that in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 11 (framed under Sec. 16-G of the Act) a teacher or principal who is on probation is normally to be confirmed on the expiry of the probation period in fact this rule says that such person shall be confirmed at the end of his probation, unless before the expiry of the period of probation his services are terminated or action is taken to dismiss, discharge or remove him or reduce him in rank. Had the position been that on the expiry of the period of probation the services of a probationer automatically came to an end unless specific orders of confirmation or extension were passed, there might have been something to be said for the contention of learned counsel for the respondent; for in that case it could be argued that the services came to an end of their own accord on the expiry of the probation period and no specific order of termination was required. But, as Regulation 11 stands, an order of (termination if not dismissal, discharge or removal) is definitely required to be passed by the management, if they wish to prevent the petitioner from continuing in service. Such being the case, I am satisfied that the order that has been passed in the present case, informing the petitioner that she would not be kept on after her probationary period had expired, is neither more or less than a notice of termination of services. Such being the case, I am satisfied that the order that has been passed in the present case, informing the petitioner that she would not be kept on after her probationary period had expired, is neither more or less than a notice of termination of services. And since no prior approval of the Inspectress of Girls School had been obtained, this notice of termination is clearly invalid. 8. In view of my finding on the first point, it is unnecessary for me to consider the second line of argument pursued by Mr. K. P. Agarwal. 9. This petition is accordingly allowed with costs, the impugned order dated 29-6-1962 quashed.