JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - Roop Kishore Maheshwari has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing of the orders dated 6th of September, 1971 and 4th of May, 1974, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur and Dy. Director, Education, Meerut. 2. None of the respondents to whom notice of the petition was given has appeared to contest the petition. 3. Briefly stated the facts as they emerge from the petition are that the petitioner was employed as a Lecturer in History in the R. N. I. Inter College, Bhagwanpur, district Saharanpur. In the year 1970 the petitioner applied for and was selected for the post of a post-graduate teacher in Dalmiya Vidya Mandir College at Rajgangpur, Orissa. Accordingly he applied to the management of R. N. I. Inter College for leave to enable him to join the duties at Dalmiya Vidya Mandir College, Rajgangpur. The management granted leave to the petitioner from 1st of October, 1970 to 1st of May, 1971. In the month of April, 1971, the petitioner received a communication from the principal of R. N. I. Inter College requiring him to rejoin his duties on 20th of May, 1971. Instead of rejoining the duties, the petitioner applied for further leave upto 10th of August, 1971, which leave was sanctioned by the management. The petitioner again applied for extension of leave upto May, 1972. Petitioner has filed a copy of the communication received from the President of the R. N. I. Inter College, dated 29th of June, 1971, which purports to certify that his leave had been extended upto the end of May, 1972 as Annexure `1' to the petition. However, in the meantime, in the month of August, 1971. while, according to the petitioner, he was still on leave, management of R. N. I. Inter College terminated his services and informed him about the action taken by it. The petitioner then left the job at Dalmiya Vidhya Mandir College, Orissa. and reported for duty at the R. N. I. Inter College on 26th of September, 1971. It appears that during this time, the management succeeded in obtaining the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur, for termination of petitioner's services on 6th September 1971. The petitioner then left the job at Dalmiya Vidhya Mandir College, Orissa. and reported for duty at the R. N. I. Inter College on 26th of September, 1971. It appears that during this time, the management succeeded in obtaining the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, Saharanpur, for termination of petitioner's services on 6th September 1971. Petitioner claims that the order of the District Inspector of Schools, dated 6th of September, 1971, approving the termination of his service was never communicated to him, probably because the District Inspector of Schools thought that he was traceless. He was accordingly not aware of the order of the District Inspector of Schools approving the action taken by the management. He went on repeating his request for permission to join his duties, but nobody gave him clear answer. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the order of the District Inspector of Schools, approving the action of the management in terminating his services, he immediately filed an appeal which was received in the office of the Dy. Director, on 4th of February, 1972. In the memorandum of appeal, he inter alia claimed that the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, had been obtained by misrepresenting facts and for mala fide reasons. 4. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Regional Dy. Director, Education, on following three grounds: (1) According to Section 16-G (3), the appeal should have been filed within one month of the date of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 6th of September, 1971, approving the action of the management in terminating petitioner's services. The appeal filed by the petitioner on 4th of February, 1972, was thus barred by time. (2) Service of the petitioner had been terminated on the ground that number of students in History had fallen down. As his services had been terminated in the ordinary course and was not based on any allegation of misconduct, it fell under Regulation 26 (1) of the Regulation framed under Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act. (3) Since the services of the petitioner had been terminated because of abolition of subject and the appeal had not been filed within time, the appeal deserved to be rejected. 5. In the result, order of the District Inspector of Schools, granting approval to the action taken by the management stood affirmed. 6. (3) Since the services of the petitioner had been terminated because of abolition of subject and the appeal had not been filed within time, the appeal deserved to be rejected. 5. In the result, order of the District Inspector of Schools, granting approval to the action taken by the management stood affirmed. 6. Section 16-G (3) provides that no Principal, Headmaster or teacher can be removed or discharged from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution of emoluments or served with notice of termination of service except with prior approval in writing of the inspector and that the decision of the Inspector in this regard has to be communicated within the period to be prescribed by regulation. It is thus obvious; that the services of a teacher cannot be terminated whether that be by way of punishment or in exercise of the power under Regulation 26 contained in Chapter III of the Regulation, framed under Section 16-G of the Act, (which provide for termination of the services of a permanent teacher, by giving him three months notice, on account of abolition of post which he is holding), without obtaining the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The order granting or refusing such approval is required to be made under Section 16-G (3) (b) of the Act. Section 16-G (3) (c) then provides that any party may prefer an appeal to the Regional Deputy Director Education, against an order of the District Inspector of Schools made under Clause (b), within one month from the date of communication of the order to it. It follows that whether termination of petitioner's service was by way of punishment or was in exercise of power under Regulation 26 of' the Regulation framed tinder Section 16-G of the Act. the order of the inspector of Schools approving the termination of petitioner's service was appealable under Section 16-G (3) and that such an appeal) could be filed within 30 days of the date; of communication of the order dated 6th September, 1971, to the petitioner. 7. the order of the inspector of Schools approving the termination of petitioner's service was appealable under Section 16-G (3) and that such an appeal) could be filed within 30 days of the date; of communication of the order dated 6th September, 1971, to the petitioner. 7. The Regional Dy, Director, Education, was clearly in error when his thought that the limitation for filing the) appeal started running from the date of the order, i. e. from 6th September, 1971, and that the date when it was communicated to the petitioner was not relevant.' According to the facts alleged in the writ petition, which have not been controverted before us, the order dated 6th of September, 1971, had never been communicated to the petitioner and that he filed[ the appeal before the Regional Dy. Director, Education, within 30 days of his coming to know about that order. The reason why the order does not appear to have P been communicated to the petitioner, viz., that he was not traceable, does not appear to be correct inasmuch as the petitioner was there at Saharanpur all through and was making efforts for rejoining the duties. If the District Inspector of Schools had cared to do so, he could have easily found out his address from the Head of Institution and served h:m with a copy of the order passed by him. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the order was in fact not communicated to the petitioner and the limitation for filing the appeal could run, if at all, from the date when the petitioner came to know about its existence. As stated earlier, facts mentioned in the petition, which have not been controverted, clearly show that the petitioner had preferred the appeal within 30 days of his coming to know of the order, In the circumstances, none of the three reasons given by the Regional Dy. Director, Education, for dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner is tenable. 8. A perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director, Education shows that he has disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner without going into its merits, merely on the ground that it was not maintainable and was barred by time. Director, Education, for dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner is tenable. 8. A perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director, Education shows that he has disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner without going into its merits, merely on the ground that it was not maintainable and was barred by time. As we have come to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the petitioner was maintainable and was also within limitation, we have no other option but to allow the petition, quash the appellate orders of the Deputy Director, Education and to direct him to dispose of petitioner's appeal on merits. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent that the order of the Dy. Director, Education, dated 4th of March, 1974, dismissing petitioner's appeal is quashed. The Deputy Director, Education, will now decide the appeal filed by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, as the petitioner has been out of service since the year 1911, the Dy. Director, Education, will take immediate steps to dispose of the appeal at a very early date. Since no one has appeared to oppose the prayer made in this petition, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.