JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - Shri Jain Shevtambar Maha Sabha, Uttar Pradesh is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act No. 21 of 1960). According to the petitioners the Society established Shri Atma Nand Jain Uchter Madhyamik Vidyalaya at Hastnapur, district Meerut, which is duly recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh. A Scheme of Administration of the educational institution has been framed under Section 16-A. of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which has been approved by the Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh. Under the Scheme of Administration, a Committee of Management has been elected which is empowered to manage the affairs of the institution. Sri Prem Chand Arya, respondent No. 2. was appointed as principal of the School in Aug. 1972 and was confirmed on the post in 1973. The Committee of Management on 5-11-1976 passed a resolution under which certain charges, were framed against respondent No. 2 and he was asked to show cause. He was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Respondent No. 2 did not submit, any reply to the charges and abstained from appearing before the Committee-constituted for enquiring into the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Committee proceeded ex parte and submitted its report to the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management served a notice on respondent No. 2 to-show cause against the proposed punishment but he refused to appear before the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management considered the report of the Enquiry Committee and other materials placed on record and decided by its resolution dated 2nd Jan. 1977 that respondent No. 2 be dismissed from service with effect from the date of suspension, that is, 5th Nov. 1976. A copy of the resolution was served on respondent No. 2. The District Inspector of Schools: was also sent a copy of the resolution. By his letter dated 13th Jan. 1977 the District Inspector of Schools disapproved the order dismissing respondent No. 2 from service on the ground that his prior approval had not been obtained as required by Section 16-G (3) (a) of the Act. The District Inspector of Schools: was also sent a copy of the resolution. By his letter dated 13th Jan. 1977 the District Inspector of Schools disapproved the order dismissing respondent No. 2 from service on the ground that his prior approval had not been obtained as required by Section 16-G (3) (a) of the Act. The petitioners have challenged the legality of the order of the District Inspector of Schools principally on the ground that Shri Atma Nand Jain Uchter Madhyamik Vidyalaya is an educational institution, established and administered by Shevtambar Jains who constitute a minority community and consequently the provision of Section 16-G (3) (a) of the Act is void and inapplicable in so far as the aforesaid institution is concerned. 2. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents it has been asserted that Shri Atma Nand Jain Uchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya is not an educational institution established and administered by the Jain Community and that the Jains do not constitute an independent minority community. Other pleas raised in the counter-affidavits are not relevant for the decision of the present petition. 3. During the course of hearing it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, was already enquiring into the question whether Shri Atma Nand Jain Uchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya is an institution established and administered by the followers of Jain religion. The hearing of the petition was adjourned and the Bench by an order dated 22nd April, 1978 directed the District Inspector of Schools to decide the question whether Atma Nand Jain Uchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya is an institution established and administered by the followers of Jain religion, after affording an opportunity to the parties concerned. The District Inspector of Schools gave opportunity to the parties concerned who brought on record materials in support of their respective claims. The District Inspector of Schools, however, felt that in view of the order of the State Government dated 2nd June, 1978 the matter has to be decided by the State Government. He consequently forwarded all the materials produced by the parties before him to the State Government. The State Government by its order dated March 1, 1979 recognised the Atma Nand Jain Uchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya as a minority community institution. A photostat copy of the order of the State Government has been brought on record. He consequently forwarded all the materials produced by the parties before him to the State Government. The State Government by its order dated March 1, 1979 recognised the Atma Nand Jain Uchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya as a minority community institution. A photostat copy of the order of the State Government has been brought on record. Since the State Government has recognised the School in question as a minority community school, the present petition has to be decided on that basis. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 16-G (3) (a) of the Act which provides that no Principal, Headmaster or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments, or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector is void and inapplicable in so far as the minority community institutions are concerned, being violative of Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on Smt. Josephs Higher Secondary School, Meerut Cantt. v. Ravi Shankar Sharma ( AIR 1976 All 390 ) wherein a Bench of this Court held that the power conferred on the Inspector is a check on the administration. It is uncanalised and unguided in the sense that no facts have been mentioned on the basis of which alone the Inspector may exercise his power. In the absence of any guideline, it cannot be held that the power of approval conferred on the Inspector was solely a check on mal-administration of the institution. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1974 SC 1389 ) the Court held that the impugned provision is violative' of Art. 30 (1) of" the Constitution. It may be noted here-that in St. Xaviers College case the attack was on cl. (b) to sub-ss. (l) and (2) of Section 51-A of the Gujarat University Act 1949. Both these clauses provided that penalty or termination is to be approved by the Vice-Chancellor or any other officer of the University authorised by the Vice-Chancellor. The Supreme Court held that those provisions are violative of Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution. (b) to sub-ss. (l) and (2) of Section 51-A of the Gujarat University Act 1949. Both these clauses provided that penalty or termination is to be approved by the Vice-Chancellor or any other officer of the University authorised by the Vice-Chancellor. The Supreme Court held that those provisions are violative of Art. 30 (1) of the Constitution. It must, therefore, be held that in the case of the institution in question prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was not required before dismissing respondent No. 2 from the service. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 contended that S- 16-G (3) (a), is not wholly void but it is only unenforceable in so far as the minority community institutions are concerned and that it may be inapplicable to such institutions by its own force but it could be made applicable if the institution itself so decided. To bring out the distinction between a statute which is void and that which is only unenforceable, reference was made-to the observation of the Supreme Court in M. P. V. Sundararamier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1958 SC 468 ) to the effect that while a law on a matter not within the competence of the Legislature is a nullity, a law on a topic within its competence but repugnant to the Constitutional prohibitions is only unenforceable. It was urged that the State Legislature was competent to enact a law on the topic of education and educational institutions within the State but the impugned provision was inapplicable to minority institution on account, of Constitutional prohibition contained in Art. 30 (1). The observations of the Supreme Court noted above were made in a different context altogether. The Constitutional validity of provisions exactly similar to the one under consideration came up for decision in St. Xaviers College case and they were held to be void and consequently unenforceable. 6. Assuming that Section 16-G (3) (a) is only unenforceable in relation to minority community educational institutions we find no merit in the contention that it could be made applicable and was so done in the present case by cl. 11 (3) of the Scheme of Administration framed under Section 16-A of the Act. 6. Assuming that Section 16-G (3) (a) is only unenforceable in relation to minority community educational institutions we find no merit in the contention that it could be made applicable and was so done in the present case by cl. 11 (3) of the Scheme of Administration framed under Section 16-A of the Act. That clause provides that the power of the Committee of Management with regard to appointment, confirmation, promotion, punishment of the principal, teacher etc., shall be in accordance with the Act and the regulations. It was contended that in view of clause 11' of the Scheme the provision of Section 16-G (3) (a) was made applicable to the institution in question. We do not find it possible to accept that under cl. 11 of the Scheme it was intended to make applicable even those provisions of the Act which (are) wholly inapplicable in the case of a minority community institution. There is no indication that the Committee of Management intended to curtail their power regarding termination of services of the principal and teachers of the institution by making it subject to the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The constitutional safeguard which was available to the institution could neither be waived nor appears to have been waived by cl. 11 of the Scheme. By cl. 11 only those provisions of the Act are made applicable which validly apply to a minority community institution. 7. The order of the State Government recognising Shri Atma Nand Jain Uchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya as a minority community educational institution renders the provisions of Section 16-G (3) (a) inapplicable to that institution. It must, therefore, be held that the District Inspector of Schools had no power to set aside the decision of the Committee of Management dismissing respondent No. 2 from service on the ground that his prior approval had not been obtained. 8. No other question was pressed for consideration. 9. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 13th Jan. 1977 is quashed. Parties shall bear their own costs.