JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner is a registered society. It runs an educational institution called Sri Agrasen Kanya Inter College, Varanasi. It employed Smt. Hemlata Shah (Respondent No. 2) as a Science Teacher in this Institution with effect from 8th July, 1968. She was placed on one year's probation. When the academic year was coming to a close, the Management took up the case of the 2nd respondent. The principal of the institution submitted a report to the Manager, who forwarded the same to the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee on 7th May, 1969, resolved not to confirm the 2nd respondent because her work was not found satisfactory. In compliance of Section 16-G (3) (b) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, papers relating to this matter- were sent by the Managing Committee to the Regional Inspectress of the Girls Schools for approval. The Regional Inspectress on 24th May, 1969, conveyed to the Management her approval to the proposal. Thereafter, the management served a notice on respondent No. 2 terminating her services on one month's notice. It appears that subsequently, respondent No. 2 made a representation before the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. On 15th July, 1969, the Regional Inspectress recalled the order granting the approval. The order dated 15th July, 1969, stated that the order terminating the services of the teacher contained allegations of misconduct against her. They were tantamount to casting stigma on her work and character. The order was hence illegal. 2. The Society challenges the validity of this order on the ground that the Regional Inspectress of the Girls Schools has no power to entertain a review or appeal against her own order granting approval. Under clause (c) of sub-sec. (3) of Section 16-G of the Act, the aggrieved party may prefer an appeal to the Regional Deputy Director of Education against the order approving or disapproving the proposal. There is no provision for an appeal or review or representation to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools herself against her own order. The 2nd respondent could have, if she so liked, preferred an appeal to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, instead of making a representation to the Regional Inspectress. That was incompetent. 3. There is no provision for an appeal or review or representation to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools herself against her own order. The 2nd respondent could have, if she so liked, preferred an appeal to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, instead of making a representation to the Regional Inspectress. That was incompetent. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, urged that this is not a case fit for interference in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution because on its face the order which purported to be a simple notice of termination cast stigma on the character of the petitioner and so, in law, it amounted to an order of dismissal from service. An order of dismissal could not under the regulations be passed without requiring the teacher to show cause against the charges. No such notice to show cause was given to the teacher. No formal enquiry into the charges was held. The petitioner never had an opportunity of meeting the charges. Consequently, being an order of dismissal, the impugned notice was illegal. Since the petitioner's services were in law terminated by an illegal order the mere fact that it has been set aside by another illegal order should be sufficient for not exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court. 4. The petitioner was appointed on a year's probation. The Management of the Institution conducted an informal enquiry into the work and conduct of the respondent as required by the regulations. The Managing Committee came to the conclusion that for reasons mentioned in the report of the Principal the respondent was not suitable for confirmation. As required by the regulations, it recorded its decision in the form of a resolution. The resolution contained the reasons which had impelled the Committee to come to that conclusion. The resolution was sent to the Inspectress of Schools for approval of the proposal to discharge, the respondent. The Inspectress of Schools agreed with the proposal and accorded the requisite approval. There- after the impugned notice was served on the teacher. 5. It will be seen that an informal enquiry was made by the Managing Committee in orders to see whether the respondent was fit for confirmation. The enquiry was not penal in nature. As a result of the enquiry the Management came to the conclusion that the teacher was not fit to be confirmed. 5. It will be seen that an informal enquiry was made by the Managing Committee in orders to see whether the respondent was fit for confirmation. The enquiry was not penal in nature. As a result of the enquiry the Management came to the conclusion that the teacher was not fit to be confirmed. The notice of termination states that the Managing Committee at its sitting on 7-5-1969 came to the conclusion that the respondent was not suitable for the following reasons. It then reproduced the reasons as were mentioned in the Principal's report and the Resolution of the Managing Committee. It, thereafter proceeds to state that hence the respondent is informed that her services are terminated with effect from 30th June, 1969. This notice purports to terminate the services of the respondent. It communicates to the petitioner the resolution of the Managing Committee. It is doubtful whether an order of. this nature would, if it had been passed in regard to a Government servant to whom Art. 311 of the Constitution applies, be characterised as casting an indelible stigma on the work and conduct of the teacher and, in that view, amounting in law, to dismissal. 6. The relevant regulation 13 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act provides : "At least six weeks before the date on which the confirmation of a teacher is due, the Headmaster or Principal shall prepare his confirmation papers and send them along with his own remarks, copies of the teachers character roll and order of appointment to the Manager who shall place them before the Committee of Management for its consideration . ........................... The decision of the committee of Management shall in each case be recorded in the form of resolution." Sub-Sec. 3 of the Section 16-G of the Act provides that no teacher can be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or served with a notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. It will, thus, be seen that the Managing Committee had to record a resolution giving its reasons for non-confirmation. The resolution along with the confirmation papers had to be sent to the Inspector for approval. Unless the Committee 'records its reasons, the Inspectress of Schools will not be in a position to consider the matter properly. It will, thus, be seen that the Managing Committee had to record a resolution giving its reasons for non-confirmation. The resolution along with the confirmation papers had to be sent to the Inspector for approval. Unless the Committee 'records its reasons, the Inspectress of Schools will not be in a position to consider the matter properly. The regulations read with the relevant provisions of the Act, therefore, require the committee to state its reasons in the form of a resolution. After considering the view point of the Committee the Inspectress of Schools passes an order of approval or of disapproval. Thereafter, a notice of termination can be served upon the probationary teacher. These requirements of the rules would show that the reasons for which a teacher is considered to be unsuitable for confirmation have to be brought on record in writing. If the Management is required by the rules to record reasons in support of its decision not to confirm a probationary teacher, then the mere communication of the resolution of the Managing Committee in which the reasons are recorded, would, in my opinion, not amount to casting it stigma oil the probationer. This view point flows from the decision of Supreme Court in State of Orissa and another v. Ram Narain Dass, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 177. In that case it was held : "The respondent had no right to the post held by him. Under the terms of his employment, the respondent could be discharged in the manner provided by rule 56-B. Again, mere termination of employment does not carry with it "any evil consequence" such as forfeiture of his pay or allowance, loss of his seniority, stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion, etc. It is then difficult to appreciate what "indelible stigma affecting the future career of the respondent was cast on him by the order discharging him from employment for unsatisfactory work and conduct. The use of the expression "discharge" in the order terminating employment of a public servant is not decisive : It may, in certain cases amount to dismissal. If a confirmed public servant holding a substantive post is discharged, the order would amount to dismissal or removal from service; but an order discharging it temporary public servant may or may not amount to dismissal. If a confirmed public servant holding a substantive post is discharged, the order would amount to dismissal or removal from service; but an order discharging it temporary public servant may or may not amount to dismissal. Whether it amounts to an order of dismissal depends upon the nature of the enquiry, if any, the proceedings taken therein and the substance of the final order passed on such enquiry." 7. Dealing with this case the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mitter V. The Union of India, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 449 (para 77) held, that the rules required that before the services of it probationer were terminated, an enquiry had to be held about his competence after giving him an opportunity to show cruse against the grounds alleged against him, and it was because such all enquiry had to be held that the result of the enquiry was communicated to the probationer when he was discharged. In other words, the statements in the order of discharge on which the probationer had relied for the purpose of showing that the said order amounted to dismissal, had to be made in the order as it result of the requirements of Rule 56 (b) ." It will, thus, appear that if the rules required holding of an enquiry into the question whether a servant should be confirmed and if the rules require that the result of the enquiry has to be recorded in the form of it resolution which had to receive the approval of another authority, it would be implicit in such rules or regulations that the result of the enquiry may be conveyed to the probationary concerned. This result would follow even though the rules did not require the active association of the probationer in the enquiry. If that is the implication of the regulations governing the condition of service of a probationary teacher, then communicating the resolution of the Managing Committee to the probationer along with the order of termination of service would not, in law, snake the order an order of dismissal from service, on the ground that the order proceeds to cast a stigma on the probationer. 8. This feature would distinguish the case of this kind from Jagdish Mitter's' case. 8. This feature would distinguish the case of this kind from Jagdish Mitter's' case. There it was not established as to what kind of enquiry was held, that was the conclusion arrived at and whether the order flowed from the findings that may have been reached at the enquiry. III these circumstances it was held that the order when it says that Jagdish Mitter was found undesirable to be retained in Government service, it expressly meant to cast a stigma and so it became an order of dismissal within the meaning of Art. 311 of the Constitution. In tine present case, the order communicated the conclusion arrived at the informal enquiry, held purely to find out whether the probationer was fit to be confirmed. It will be difficult to hold that the impugned notice would, in law. be an order of dismissal from service. This is one difficulty in accepting the submission that this Court should not interfere though it finds that the order passed by the Inspectress of Schools was totally without jurisdiction. 9. Another difficulty is that it is not clear whether the technical rule pronounced by the Supreme Court, in a case like Jagdish Mitter's case, that if an order on its face cast aspersion on the officer, it amounts to an order of dismissal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution, would apply to teachers governed by the.Intermediate Education Act and its regulations. 10. I am, not satisfied that the learned counsel has made his ground that this is not a fit case for interference. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 15th July, 1969 is quashed. The parties would, however, bear their own costs.