JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the A. S. H. P. Association, Ganjdundwara, district Etah which runs Har Narayan Intermediate College, Ganjdundwara, Etah challenges the validity of the orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 23rd September, 1970 as also that of the Dy. Director of Education dated 10th November, 1970, refusing to approve its resolution dated 12th August. 1969, for terminating the services of Sri Bhagwati Prasad Gupta, respondent No. 3. who was working as the Principal of the College. 2. According to the petitioner the Association employed Sri Bhagwati Prasad Gupta as Principal of the College run by it with effect from 19th August, 1968. 3. Sri Gupta had been appointed on probation for one year, but his probationary period was extended for a further period of one year, vide resolution of the committee of management dated 24th July, 1969. The Managing Committee vide its resolution dated 12-8-1969 decided to terminate the service of Sri Gupta during his probationary period by giving him one month's notice. Thereafter, the manager Me\htab Rai sent a letter dated 13th August, 1969, to the District Inspector of Schools requesting him to approve the proposal made by the management for terminating the services of Sri Gupta by giving him one month's notice. He also enclosed a copy of the resolution alleged to have been passed by the Managing Committee on 12th August, 1969. Information about the action taken by the Committee of management was sent to Sri Gupta but somehow he avoided receiving the same. However, on 23rd August, 1969, the Management succeeded in informing Sri Gupta that vide Managing Committee's resolution dated 12th August, 1969 his services had been terminated by giving him one month's notice and that another person had been appointed to officiate as Principal in his place. Being aggrieved by the action of the Managing Committee in terminating his services, Sri Gupta filed writ petition No. 3056 of 1969 and inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the resolution dated 24th July, 1969 extending his probationary period, and the order of dismissal dated 23-8-1969, as also the resolution of the committee of management dated 12-8-1969. After the writ petition was filed, the petitioner, vide its communication dated 30th September, 1969, informed Sri Gupta that according to the decision taken by the Managing Committee and the papers sent to the District Inspector of Schools by registered post on 13-8-1969 for obtaining his approval in that regard, his services were being terminated with effect from 1-10-1969. Sri Gupta then amended his writ petition and prayed for the quashing of the notice dated 30th September, 1969 as well. The writ petition No. 3056 of 1969 was ultimately allowed by this Court on the 3rd September, 1970 and the impugned notices dated 23-8-1969 and 30th September, 1969 were quashed. 4. After writ petition No. 3056 of 1969 was allowed by this Court, Sri Mehtab Rai, Manager of the College again approached the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 11th September, 1970. In this letter he alleged that a copy of the resolution dated 12th August, 1969 had already been forwarded to the District Inspector of School along with a letter dated 13-8-1969 for according his approval. As the papers for according approval were missing in his office he was again enclosing a copy of the resolution for according approval with effect from the date mentioned in the resolution and that as the High Court had quashed the order terminating the service on the ground of absence of approval, the matter was being placed before him for according approval to the resolution dated 12th August, 1969, for terminating the services of Sri Bhagwati Prasad Gupta. The District Inspector of Schools, vide his order dated 23-9-1970 rejected petitioner's prayer for according approval to the resolution dated 12th August, 1970. Being aggrieved, the petitioner went up in appeal before the Deputy Director and his appeal was also dismissed on 10th November, 1970. The petitioner contends that both these orders are erroneous on the face of them and are liable to be quashed. 5. Procedure for termination of service or for the discharge, removal or dismissal from service of a Principal of a recognised institution is laid down in Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder. 6. 5. Procedure for termination of service or for the discharge, removal or dismissal from service of a Principal of a recognised institution is laid down in Section 16-G of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed thereunder. 6. Section 16-G (3) (c) provides that no Principal, Head Master or teacher may be discharged, removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emolument or served with a notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. 7. Regulations 24 to 30 contained in Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act provide for the procedure which has to be followed for terminating the services of employees (including teacher, head master and principals whether they be temporary or serving or probation or permanent) of a recognised institution. Regulations 31 to 45 then provide for the procedure for punishing such employees, According to regulation 25, the services of a temporary employee (other than on probation) or of a probationer during the term of his probation can be terminated at any time by giving him one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof. 8. A reading of Section 16-G (3) (c) and Regulation 25 clearly shows that one month's notice for terminating the service of a temporary employee or that of a probationer during his probation, cannot be given unless the authority competent to terminate such service has obtained prior approval of the Inspector of School. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepted that this was the correct position in law. Indeed Writ Petition No. 3056 of 1969 filed by Sri-Gupta was allowed on this very ground. He however, contended that before the Managing Committee proceeded to approach the Inspector of School for according approval under Section 16-G (3) (a) it has to meet, and decide that the services of employee be terminated and that decision has to be expressed in the form of a resolution. The resolution is then sent to the Inspector of Schools who either approves or disapproves the same. If he approves, the resolution becomes effective otherwise it fails. 9. The resolution is then sent to the Inspector of Schools who either approves or disapproves the same. If he approves, the resolution becomes effective otherwise it fails. 9. It is true that before the Managing Committee of an Institution applies to the Inspector of Schools soliciting his approval for terminating the service of an employee, it has to meet and decide that the service of the employee is to be terminated by ping him one month's notice and that such decision of the Managing Committee is to be expressed in the form of a resolution. The service of the employee is not affected by such resolution. Mere approval by the Inspector also does not have the effect of determining the employment of the employee. The Committee of Management has to, after its resolution has been approved, take steps to determine the employment either by giving the employee one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof. It is thus evident that what can be approved by the Inspector is the proposal made by the Committee for terminating the service of the employee and not its action in determining his employment. 10. In the instant case, even though the entire proceedings for obtaining the approval of the Inspector of Schools are based on Committee of Management resolution dated 2-8-1969, the petitioner did not care to file a copy of the same along with his petition. However, its text is to be found in Manager's letter dated 13-8-1969 addressed to Sri Gupta, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the Counter affidavit. The resolution clearly recites that as Gupta did not care to offer explanation in respect of the charges levelled against him, his service was being terminated by giving him one month's notice. It went on to recite that even now if Sri Gupta could offer satisfactory explanation, to the Managing Committee will have the right to withdraw the notice otherwise his service will stand terminated with effect from 12-9-1969. Clearly by passing the resolution the committee purported to terminate the service of Sri Gupta. This resolution cannot, in our opinion be interpreted as merely employing an intention to terminate Sri Gupta's service by giving him one month's notice after obtaining the approval of the Inspector of School. Clearly by passing the resolution the committee purported to terminate the service of Sri Gupta. This resolution cannot, in our opinion be interpreted as merely employing an intention to terminate Sri Gupta's service by giving him one month's notice after obtaining the approval of the Inspector of School. Since the resolution purported to terminate the service of Sri Gupta without obtaining the prior approval of Inspector of School, it was clearly illegal and no question of approving the same could arise. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that even if the resolution dated 12-8-1969 is ignored the petitioner had, in its letter dated 13-8-1969, mentioned that the Managing Committee had decided to terminate the service of Sri Gupta by giving him one month's notice. The Inspector of School was, therefore, requested to approve the termination of Sri Gupta's service on the basis of one month's notice. This, according to the counsel for the petitioner, clearly was a mere proposal for terminating the service of Sri Gupta and the Inspector of Schools could, if he was so satisfied on the merits of the case, grant approval on the basis of this communication. We are unable to accept this submission. In the first place the wordings of the resolution indicate that the management was seeking approval for its action in actually terminating Sri Gupta's service by giving him one month's prior notice and not that it was seeking approval for its proposal to terminate the service of Sri Gupta by giving him one month's notice after receiving the approval of the Inspector. No doubt in the first paragraph of the letter it was mentioned that the Managing Committee had decided to terminate the service of Sri Gupta by giving him one month's notice under regulation No. 25 framed under Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, but that recital could also be made if the person writing the letter intended to convey to the Inspector that service of Sri Gupta had been terminated by giving him one month's notice. In the ultimate paragraph of the letter it was clearly mentioned that approval of the inspector was being sought with regard to termination of Sri Gupta's service. Moreover, the management throughout took the stand . that the service of the petitioner stood terminated after the resolution dated 12-8-1969 was passed. In the ultimate paragraph of the letter it was clearly mentioned that approval of the inspector was being sought with regard to termination of Sri Gupta's service. Moreover, the management throughout took the stand . that the service of the petitioner stood terminated after the resolution dated 12-8-1969 was passed. In the circumstances there was no occasion on 13-8-1969 for the management to seek approval for its proposal to terminate Sri Gupta's service in future. We are accordingly of opinion that even by his letter dated 13-8-1969 (Annexure B) to the writ petition), the petitioner sought approval of the Inspector for its action after dually terminating the service of Sri Gupta by giving him one month's notice. This in effect was an attempt on the part of the petitioner to obtain approval of the Inspector after actually taking action instead of taking action after obtaining approval of the Inspector of Schools. Obviously, the Inspector of Schools could not have approved the action of the Management Committee in actually terminating Sri Guptais service without obtaining his prior approval. 12. Moreover, the petitioner had also relied upon this very letter dated 13-8-1969 in the earlier writ petition, being writ petition No. 3056 of 1969 filed by Sri Gupta. In that case, this Court had clearly recorded a finding that that letter was not received in the office of the Inspector of Schools. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in this case additional material has been placed which goes to show that the letter in question was in fact received in the office of the Inspector of Schools. In our opinion, so long as the inter parte finding arrived at in the earlier writ petition, which is binding on the petitioner, stands, it is not open to the petitioner to ask us to take a different view of the matter on the basis of the additional material placed by him. If the letter dated 13-8-1969 was actually not received by the Inspector any argument based on its basis is clearly misconceived. 13. So far as the letter dated 11-9-1970 is concerned, a copy of the same has been filed as Annexure E to the writ petition. Relevant portion of the letter reads thus. If the letter dated 13-8-1969 was actually not received by the Inspector any argument based on its basis is clearly misconceived. 13. So far as the letter dated 11-9-1970 is concerned, a copy of the same has been filed as Annexure E to the writ petition. Relevant portion of the letter reads thus. "......................As the papers of approval were received by you and missing in the office we are again enclosing a copy of the resolution for according approval with effect from the date mentioned in the resolution. As the Hon'ble High Court had quashed the orders terminating service on the ground of absence of approval by you, the matter is again placed before you for according approval of the resolution dated 12-8-1969 for terminating the service of Sri Bhagwati Prasad Gupta Principal on probation.............." A perusal of the letter clearly indicates that in this letter petitioner merely sought approval for the action taken by it vide its resolution dated 12-8-1969, which as already stated could not have been approval. In the circumstances both the Inspector of Schools as also the Dy. Director 44 of Education were justified in turning down petitioner's request for approving in the action taken by it. 14. While parting with this case we must add that while opposing the prayer made in the petition it was contended on behalf of Sri Gupta that the petition was liable to be dismissed as it had been filed at the instance of Sri Mahtab Rai who had ceased to be the Manager of the Institution. It was also urged on his behalf that his status was that of a permanent principal and the Management could not determine employment of giving him one month's notice under regulation 25 of Chapter III of the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act. However, in the view which we have taken above it is not necessary for us to go into all these question. 15. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with cost.