JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha and K.M. Dayal, JJ. - Respondent no. 3 was a lecturer in the petitioner college to teach drawing the intermediate classes in the scientific group. A letter was issued by Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad to the petitioner college bringing to its notice the change in the curriculum of the scientific group of intermediate classes for the year 1970 On the basis of this letter the petitioner college took the view that drawing as a subject from intermediate classes of the scientific ground had been abolished and consequently it was not possible for the college to impart education in drawing to the intermediate classes in the scientific group. On this view a resolution was passed to abolish the post -of drawing teacher from the intermediate classes of the scientific group and to terminate the services of respondent no. 3.. The approval of the District Inspector of Schools to terminate the services of respondent no, 3 in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution was thereafter sought by the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools granted the necessary approval but added towards the entitled of this letter that if the services of respondent no. 3 were needed to teach drawing as a subject in any other class of the college he may be given an opportunity to teach those classes. On the basis of the aforesaid approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools the petitioner terminated the services of respondent no. 3 aggrieved by the approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools and termination of bis services respondent no. 3 preferred an appeal to the Deputy Director of Education: This appeal was allowed by the Deputy Director of Education and it is this order of the Deputy Director of Education which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 2. It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that drawing as a subject having been abolished from intermediate classes of the scientific group there was no option left with the petitioner but to abolish the post of the lecturer of that subject and to terminate the services pi respondent no. 3 as a consequential measure. 3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner at some length we find it difficult to accept this submission. 3 as a consequential measure. 3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner at some length we find it difficult to accept this submission. The Deputy Director of Education in the impugned order has pointed out that the letter of the Secretary of Board of High School and Intermediate Education. Allahabad referred to above was misread and misinterpreted by the petitioner. It has been pointed out in the impugned order by the Deputy Director of Education that in the curriculum of 1969-70 Geography and drawing were specifically mentioned as optional subjects in the intermediate classes of scientific group. Subsequently these two subjects were taken out and it was provided that it would be open to a student of the intermediate class in the scientific group to opt for any of the optional subjects of the literary group. It is not disputed that drawing was one of the optional subjects in the literary group with the result that even after the amendment in the curriculum drawing continued to be a subject capable of being opted by the students of intermediate classes in the scientific group and the view taken by the petitioner that on account of the change in the curriculum it was no longer open to impart education in drawing in intermediate classes of scientific group was patently erroneous. The letter of the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, referred to above has been quoted by the Deputy Director of Education in the impugned order. We have gone through that letter-and are of opinion that the view taken by the Deputy Director of Education calls for no interference. 4. The other ground taken by the Deputy Director of Education for setting aside the order of termination of the services of respondent no 3 is that even though the District Inspector of Schools in the order granting approval had specifically directed the petitioner to permit respondent no. 3 to teach drawing in other classes respondent no. 3 to teach drawing in other classes respondent no. 3 was never offered to teach drawing in other classes even though drawing as a subject was being taught in classes up to High School. No averment has been made in this writ petition that any such offer was even made to respondent no. 3 bat be declined to accept the said offer. 3 was never offered to teach drawing in other classes even though drawing as a subject was being taught in classes up to High School. No averment has been made in this writ petition that any such offer was even made to respondent no. 3 bat be declined to accept the said offer. Such an averment has however, been made for the first time in the rejoinder affidavit which respondent no. 3 had no opportunity to meet. However apart from making a bald statement in the rejoinder affidavit in this behalf no material has been furnished by the petitioner to indicate that any such offer was made to respondent no. 3 as aforesaid and was declined by him. The best evidence in this behalf could have been a copy of the letter by which the disst.. was made and of the letter of respondent no. 3 declining the offer. The same has, however, not been produced. For this reason and for the reason that the Deputy Director of Education in the impugned order had found as a fact that no offer was made by the petitioner to respondent ho. 3 as contemplated in the letter of the District Inspector of Schools we are not inclined to accept the bald statement made in the rejoinder affidavit that such an offer was ever made. The order of the Deputy Director of Education on this score also does not call for any interference. No other point has been pressed. to costs. 5. In the result we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs.