JUDGMENT Mathur, J. - This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Roman Catholic Prefecture of Gorakhpur and by St. Thomas Intermediate College, Shahganj, district Jaunpur, to challenge the order, Annexure XV, of the Deputy Director of Education, whereby approval to the termination of the services of the two probationary teachers, namely, Rama Shanker Misra and Firmctaus Hussain Ansari, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, was not granted. 2. Both the respondents were appointed teachers in the Intermediate College petitioner No. 2, on 22-7-1968. Tile appointment was on one year's probation. On 19-5-1969 the Managing Committee passed a resolution to terminate the services of the respondents on the ground of unsatisfactory work, and on 24-5-1969 the Manager of the College moved the District Inspector of Schools for the grant of approval. The District Inspector of Schools wanted some additional information which was supplied under letter dated 31-5-1969, Annexure 'III'. When the District Inspector of Schools did not communicate his decision in spite of the two reminders, petitioner No. 2 served a notice on 10-6-1969, on both the respondents terminating their services. This was done because it was necessary to give one month's notice of termination of service to the probationers and if the services were not terminated before the expiry of one year's probation, the petitioners would have been deemed to have been confirmed. Thereafter the petitioners informed the District Inspector of Schools of the action taken. The District Inspector of Schools served a show cause notice on respondents 3 and 1 on 16-6-1969 and on 28-6-I969 dismissed the request of the petitioners on the ground that there existed no provision for granting approval to the notice of termination already issued. The petitioners moved the District Inspector of Schools for reconsideration, and when this was not done they preferred appeals before the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director allowed the appeals and referred the matter to the District Inspector of Schools, who stuck to his old opinion and evidently disregarded the directions of the Deputy Director of Education. He again refused to grant approval after the notice of termination had been served on the respondents. This order, dated 30-10-1969, is Annexure XII. The petitioners then preferred two appeals before the Deputy Director of Education, who dismissed them on merits. The order of the Deputy Director of Education is Annexure XV to the Writ Petition. 3. He again refused to grant approval after the notice of termination had been served on the respondents. This order, dated 30-10-1969, is Annexure XII. The petitioners then preferred two appeals before the Deputy Director of Education, who dismissed them on merits. The order of the Deputy Director of Education is Annexure XV to the Writ Petition. 3. The District Inspector of Schools evidently took a wrong view of the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and of the Regulations. He did not make a difference between simple termination of service and discharge, dismissal or removal by way of punishment. A period of six weeks is provided for disciplinary proceeding taken for discharge, removal or dismissal by way of punishment, and not for mere termination of service. For simple termination, it is not necessary for the Management to serve a show cause notice on the teacher. The resolution of the Managing Committee shall be sufficient unless found that the resolution was mala fide or arbitrary. It is also not necessary for the District Inspector of Schools to serve a show cause notice on the teacher, but he shall be fully competent to give a hearing to the teacher and also a show cause notice, if considered necessary, before deciding whether to grant or not to grant approval to the termination of service. It shall be, for the District Inspector of Schools to himself decide the nature of the inquiry to be conducted by him before taking the decision. The procedure to be adopted shall naturally depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is necessary for the District Inspector of Schools to take a very quick decision in the matter. He must keep in mind that a final decision has to be taken before the expiry of the period of probation and that one month's notice of termination of service has to be given to the teacher. It is also necessary for the Management to take early action, and for the District Inspector of Schools to give up decision at least one month before the end of the period of probation. The District Inspector of Schools thus took an erroneous view and he acted with impropriety when he disregarded the directions of the Deputy Director of Education given while originally disposing of the appeals. The District Inspector of Schools thus took an erroneous view and he acted with impropriety when he disregarded the directions of the Deputy Director of Education given while originally disposing of the appeals. It shall be for the Department itself to take such action as may be considered necessary against the District Inspector of Schools. 4. While finally disposing of the appeals the Deputy Director of Education gave his decision on merits also. He did not upheld the resolution of the Managing Committee of the Intermediate College for the reason that two material Registers had not been produced before him. It was not pleaded in the Writ Petition that this statement of fact was not true. When material Registers were not produced, it could be presumed that a perusal of those Registers would have disproved the facts as alleged by the petitioner. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court does not usurp the functions of a Court of Appeal and can interfere only if the order passed by the subordinate authorities is arbitrary or unreasonable. For reasons indicated above, the order cannot be said to be arbitrary. Hence there is no case for interference on merits. 5. It is, however, necessary to express opinion on two questions of law: firstly, whether the services of a probationer teacher can or cannot be terminated without the approval of the District Inspector of Schools; and secondly, if the restriction so imposed by the Intermediate Education Act is hit by Article 3) of the Constitution. 6. Section 16-G (3) (a) of the Intermediate Education Act makes it clear that a notice of termination of service cannot be served on a teacher without the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. There are two parts of this clause. The first part covers discharge, removal or dismissal from service or reduction in rank or being subjected to any diminution in emoluments, and the second part refers to the notice of termination of service-termination which would be different to discharge, removal or dismissal. The termination' of service must, therefore, be other than by way of punishment as in the case of a probationer or temporary teacher. Under sub-sec. (2) of Section 16-G, Regulations can be frame to provide for the period of probation and the conditions of confirmation. The termination' of service must, therefore, be other than by way of punishment as in the case of a probationer or temporary teacher. Under sub-sec. (2) of Section 16-G, Regulations can be frame to provide for the period of probation and the conditions of confirmation. Regulation 11 Chapter III provides that unless before the expiry of the period of probation, the service of a teacher is terminated or action is taken to dismiss, discharge or remove him or reduce him in rank, he shall be confirmed on the post and in the grade at the end of his probation. This Regulation also speaks of two mode, of termination of service. One is simple termination of service and the other is by way of punishment. Consequently, where the service of a probationer is being terminated, compliance of sub-sec. (3) of Section 16-G shall be necessary. 7. Regulations 10 and 11, Chapter III read together merely lay down that if the service of a probationer is not terminated before the expiry of the period of probationer, he shall be deemed to have been confirmed Regulation 25, Chapter III further lays down that while terminating the service of a probationer during the term of his probation, he shall be given one month's notice. This Regulation pertains to only one aspect of the matter and not all, and on the basis of this Regulation, it cannot be said that no approval of the District Inspector of Schools is 'necessary. It may also be mentioned that this Regulation also speaks of termination of service of a probationer. 8. In other words, it is evident from Section 16-G (3) (a) of the Intermediate Education Act that the notice of termination of service of a probationer cannot be served on the teacher without obtaining the prior approval of the Inspector. A similar view was taken in Beulah Cutting v. The Chairman, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, 1966 A.L.J 58. 9. Article 30 (1) of the Constitution guarantees the right of the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; but as laid down in Rev. Sidhrajbhai Sabhai v. State of Gujrat. A.I.R. 1963 Supreme Court 540. 9. Article 30 (1) of the Constitution guarantees the right of the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice; but as laid down in Rev. Sidhrajbhai Sabhai v. State of Gujrat. A.I.R. 1963 Supreme Court 540. Regulations can be made "in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like may undoubtedly be imposed," and such Regulations are not restrictions on the substance of the right guaranteed by Article 30. They are merely to secure the proper functioning of the institution in educational matters. The provisions laying down the qualifications of the Principal and the teachers and also the conditions of service are matters to secure proper functioning of the institution, and they are not directly connected with management. The Management has the right to make the appointment. This can be treated as a part of the managerial work, but whether the person appointed be confirmed or not is a somewhat different matter. 10. Section 16-G (3) (a) does not, in my opinion, infringe Article 30 (1) of the Constitution, and even the institutions of minorities must comply with this provision. 11. The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed with costs payable to respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Stay order is vacated.