JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - By a duly appointed selection committee under the provisions of the U.P. High School & Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner was selected for appointment as Principal of the D.A.V. Intermediate College, Agra on 16th December, 1973. On 18th December, 1973, the Report of the Selection Committee, recommending the petitioner for appointment as Principal was forwarded along with a covering letter to the Deputy Director of Education for approval. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was undisputedly received by the Deputy Director of Education on 18th December, 1973. 2. It is stated that on 27th December, 1973, the Deputy Director of Education wrote a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Selection Committee asking for certain further documents before according approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Principal as recommended by the Selection Committee. The letter was received by the Chairman of the Selection Committee. He was also functioning at the relevant time as Authorised Controller of the College on 3-1-1974. Through the correspondence exchanged between the Chairman of the Selection Committee (Authorised Controller) and the Deputy Director of Education, who ultimately, by means of letter dated 3-6-1974 communicated his disapproval to the appointment of the petitioner as a Principal of the College declined to accept the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. Against the order of the Deputy Director of Education, the Authorised Controller appealed but the appeal was rejected by a laconic order passed by the Director of Education dated 1-10-1974. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 3-6-1974 and court of the Director of Education dated 1-10-1974. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that since the recommendation of the Selection Committee was received by the Deputy Director of Education on 18-12-1973, and he did not disapprove the recommendation for appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College, the recommendation of the Selection Committee stood automatically approved, and the petitioner become entitled to appointment in that capacity. In support of his contention, the petitioner placed reliance on section 16-F (2) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, which is in the following terms : "16-F (2) : The name of the selected candidate shall be forwarded for approval, in the case of a teacher, by the Principal or Headmaster, to the Inspector, and, in the case of Principal or Headmaster, by the Chairman of the Selection Committee to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. A statement showing the names, qualifications, and other particulars, as may be prescribed, of all candidates who may have applied for selection shall also be sent along with the name of the selected candidate. The Inspector or Regional Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be, shall give his decision within two weeks of the receipt of the relevant papers, failing which approval shall be deemed to have been accorded." (Emphasis supplied). He has placed reliance on a number of decisions in which the view taken was that in the event of the Inspector or the Regional Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be having failed to give a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee within two weeks of receipt of the relevant papers, in the eye of law, it will be deemed that approval has been accorded to the recommendation. Learned counsel, however, contended that before the expiry of two weeks prescribed by section 16 F (2) of the Act, the Regional Deputy Director of Education had called for further particulars, which he had the power to do, under Regulation 1 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Act, and since within a period of two weeks the management had failed to supply the requisite papers, section 16-F (2) of the Act did not operate as to bring about the automatic approval of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. It is not necessary to decide this question because in the present case, such papers as were called for by the Deputy Director of Education were not required to be furnished as contemplated by Regulation 12 on which reliance has been placed. It is not necessary to decide this question because in the present case, such papers as were called for by the Deputy Director of Education were not required to be furnished as contemplated by Regulation 12 on which reliance has been placed. Moreover, on account of failure of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, to communicate his disapproval to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee within the period of time prescribed by sub-section (2) of section 16-F of the Act, the Committee of Management assuming that approval stood accorded by the Director of Education, issued a letter of appointment to the petitioner as Principal of the College on 2-1-1974. The order of the Deputy Director of Education passed in 1974 has the result of removing the petitioner from service to which he had been appointed by the Committee of Management through the letter dated 2-1-1974, without affording him an opportunity of showing cause against such termination of his service. 5. In our opinion, in the first place on the facts of this particular case, the Deputy Director of Education must be deemed in the eye of law to have approved the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College, by omitting to communicate the disapproval of the same to the Committee of Management ; and secondly, because the impugned order dated 3-6-1974 operates as an order removing the petitioner from service, to which he became entitled to by virtue of the letter of appointment dated 2-1-1974, the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 3-6-1974 cannot be sustained. For the same reasons, the order dismissing the appeal of the Authorised Controller by the Director of Education also cannot be held to be legal and valid. 6. For the reasons given, above, this petition is allowed and the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Education dated 3-6-1974 and that of the Director of Education dated 1-10-1974 are quashed. The opposite-parties are directed to treat the petitioner as continuing in service in the capacity of Principal of the College concerned. Parties shall bear their own costs.