JUDGMENT Gyanendra Kumar, J. - The admitted facts of the case are that Tilak Inter College, Bareilly is run by the Municipal Board, Bareilly. By means of a resolution dated 21-9-1962 the Municipal Board had appointed the respondent (B.K. Mehrotra) as Principal of the aforesaid College on one year's probation. AcCordingly, letter dated 16-10-1962 was issued by the President of the Board asking the respondent to join his duties within ten. clays of the receipt of the letter. The respondent-reported for duty on 25-10-1962 but on account of the unwillingness of the then acting Principal, the charge of the office could be handed over to him only on 31-10-1962. 2. A penal of Inspectors appointed under the Intermediate Education Act II of 1921, visited the College on the 14th and 15th of February, 1963 and, inter alia, commented: "The new Principal Shri B.K. Mehrotra is a man of great potentiality.... He has been doing a lot to improve the position of the College since he has taken over charge It has come into the hands of a new Principal, who, with the members of the staff and management, is working with 'missionary spirit and zeal for the betterment and improvement of the institution." 3. On 31-10-1963 a resolution was passed by the Municipal Board extending the probationary period of the respondent up to December, 1963. However, in its meeting held on 16-12-1963 the Board resolved that "the services of Shri B.K. Mehrotra. Principal, Tilak Inter College be not confirmed and also his probationary period be not extended any more. Consequently his services stand expired forthwith. Shri Radhey Raman Saxena at present Lecturer, Azad Inter College, who is the senior most Lecturer in both, the Colleges, shall officiate as Principal, Tilak Inter College from tomorrow 17-12-1963." 4. The respondent challenged the above order by means of writ petition 'No. 78 of 1964 which was allowed by Tripathi, j., and the resolution passed by 'the Municipal Board in its meeting dated 16th December, 1963, terminating the services of the petitioner (now respondent) was quashed. The Municipal Board has, therefore, come up in Special Appeal filed on 9-9-1964. 5. On 28-4-1967 the respondent move( an application in this appeal for permission to amend his writ petition by adding a few new grounds thereto. The Municipal Board has, therefore, come up in Special Appeal filed on 9-9-1964. 5. On 28-4-1967 the respondent move( an application in this appeal for permission to amend his writ petition by adding a few new grounds thereto. The propose( ground No. XI was as under : "XI Because there being no prior approval, for the termination of the service o the petitioner, of the District Inspector o Schools contemplated by sub-sec. (3) o Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, the order terminating the services of the petitioner was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction." 6. When this application came up to consideration before this Bench on 11,10 1958, the learned counsel for the appellant Board candidly conceded that the Inter mediate Education Act also applied u schools and Intermediate College of Municipal Boards in Uttar Pradesh on 16-12 1963, when the impugned resolution was passed by the appellant Board. He also admitted that the permission of the District Inspector Of Schools was not obtained prim to the passing of the impugned resolution dated 16-12-1963 and to the 'issuing of the order of termination of the respondent' service thereunder. However, the learn& counsel for the appellant-Board contended that the respondent was still on probation on the aforesaid date (16-12-1963) and nu such previous approval in respect of him was necessary under the provisions of the Act. In view of the concession and statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant-Board, the respondent's application for addition of fresh grounds to the memo of his writ petition was allowed by our order dated 11-10-1968. 7. In the appeal before us, the respondent has resisted the order of termination of his service by resolution dated 16-12-1963 passed by the Municipal Board, on the following two grounds : 1. That there being no prior approval for the termination of his service by the District Inspector of Schools as contemplated by sub-sec. (3) of Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, the order terminating the services of the respondent was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. That there being no prior approval for the termination of his service by the District Inspector of Schools as contemplated by sub-sec. (3) of Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, the order terminating the services of the respondent was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. That, in any case, under the pro-visions of the Intermediate Education Act and Regulation No. 11 of Chapter III 'framed thereunder the respondent stood automatically confirmed, before the impugned resolution dated 16-12-1963 was passed, so there was no question of not Extending the period of his probation and terminating his services as a probationer Principal of the College. 8. We think there is considerable force in Both these contentions. For proper appreciation of the controversy it is necessary to vote the material portion of Section 16-G of :he Intermediate Education Act. "16-G (1) Every person employed in a recognised institution shall be governed by ,such conditions of service as may be prescribed by Regulation and any agreement between the management and such employee in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of that Act or with the Regulations shall be void. (2) (3) (a) No Principal, Headmaster or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank Dr subjected to any diminution in emoluments, or served with notice of termination 3f service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector 9. Sub-sec. (3) (a) of Section 16-G is absolute in terms and does not make any distinction between a 'confirmed' and a 'probationer' Principal, with the result that he cannot be discharged or removed from service without prior approval in writing of the District Inspector of Schools. The fact it is so clearly borne out by Regulation II, which would be discussed instantly. 10. At any rate, even if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Board be accepted for the sake of argument that Section 16-G (3) does not apply to a probationer Principal of an Intermediate College, we have to see whether the respondent was still a probationer Principal, when the impugned resolution dated 16-12-1963 was passed, discharging him from the office of the Principal. 11. In this connection reference may be made to Regulation 11 of Chapter III (relating to Conditions of Service) framed under Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 11. In this connection reference may be made to Regulation 11 of Chapter III (relating to Conditions of Service) framed under Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Regulation 11 reads as under : "11 - Unless before the expiry of the period of probation, the service of a Headmaster, Principal or teacher is terminated or action is taken to dismiss, discharge or remove him or reduce him in rank or in the case of Headmaster or Principal the period of probation is extended under Regulation 12 following, he shall be confirmed on the post and in the grade at the end of his probation." 12. It has to be remembered that the appellant Board, by its resolution dated 21-9-1962, had appointed the respondent as the Principal of the College on the years probation and it was on 25-10-1962 that the respondents had reported for duty. Computing the period of one year's probation with effect from 25-10-1962, it expired on 25-101963. Therefore, in terms of Regulation II, the respondent's probation could have been extended only before 25-10-1963, failing which the respondent stood automatically confirmed as Principal, with effect from 25-10-1963. In the instant case, it was six days later, i.e. on 31-10-1963 that the appellant-Board purported to extend his period of probation was thus wholly illegal and ineffective. That being so, the resolution passed on 16-12-1963 refusing to confirm the services of the respondent as Principal of the College and not extending his period of probation any further is meaningless, inasmuch as the respondent already stood confirmed with effect from 25-10-1963, as shown above. Thus the order passed by the appellant-Board on 16-12-1963, terminating the services of the respondent forthwith is void and inoperative. 13. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. The respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the amount of his salary deposited in the court of the Munsif Bareilly, in accordance with the orders passed by this Court on 23rd September, 1964 and 27th November, 1964.