JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Krishna Narain Katiyar, hereinafter called the petitioner, praying that the order dated 18-12-1976 passed by respondent no. 2 be quashed and & writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to respondent no. I to decide the petitioner's representation. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition case briefly be stated as under: The petitioner was appointed as Headmaster in Jan Kalyan Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Ursan, Kanpur on 6-7-1975 on probation fora period of one year. According to the petitioner, he was confirmed as Headmaster on 24th of September, 1976, but the committee of management, vide its order dated 18-12-1976, terminated his services without affording him any opportunity to show cause. A representation was then sent by the petitioner to respondent no. 2. According to the petitioner respondent no 2 has yet disposed of the representation and hence this petition. 3. The petition has been opposed on behalf of respondent no. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially relied on Rule 11 of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Employees) Rules, 1975 for the contention that the order passed by respondent no. 2 terminating his services was illegal. Rule 11 states that no order dismissing, removing or terminating the services of a teacher or other employee of a recognised school shall be passed save with the prior approval in writing of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The term recognised school has, however, been defined in Rule 2 (e) to mean any junior basic school, not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by Board or any local body, recognised by the Board before the commencement of the Rules and imparting free education from classes I to V. In the instant case it is the petitioners own case that the institution in which he was employed was imparting education from classes VI to VIII. It is, therefore, obvious that Rule 11 cannot apply to him. 5. It is, therefore, obvious that Rule 11 cannot apply to him. 5. Confronted with the above position the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to place reliance on Rule 15 of the U.P. Recognised Basic School (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, Rule 15, no doubt, states that no Headmaster or Assistant Teacher shall be served with a notice of termination of service, except with the prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer. The impugned order was, however, passed against the petitioner on 18-12-1976, i.e. much before the aforesaid Rule came into existence. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioner to rely on Rule 15 in order to contend that order terminating his services is illegal. 6. Learned counsel then referred us to para 143, clause (1) of the Education Code and contended that the impugned order was, in any case, inconsistent with this para and hence deserve to be quashed. We have carefully looked into para 134 clause (1) and we find that several things are necessary before that clause can apply. It should in the first instance be shown that the teacher concerned is employed in a recognised institution. It should next be shown that there is no agreement in the prescribed form between the management and the institution. In the instant case no material has been placed before us in order to enable us to conclude that the institution in which the petitioner was employed was a recognised school. There is also no averment to the effect that there was no agreement between the petitioner and the institution concerned. Further, clause (i) of Rule 143 speaks of prior approval of the Inspector and not of the District Basic Education Officer. It will, therefore, be appropriate to infer that Para 143 (i) applies to teachers of High School and Intermediate classes and not to Junior Higher Secondary or Basic Schools. That apart, it has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Magan Ram Yadav v. Deputy Director of Education and others [(1980 (6) ALR 26] that Rule 143 contains only administrative instructions has no statutory effect. That apart, it has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Magan Ram Yadav v. Deputy Director of Education and others [(1980 (6) ALR 26] that Rule 143 contains only administrative instructions has no statutory effect. Consequently, even if we assume that Rule 143 applies to Junior High School, it cannot be held that there has been breach of any statutory provision, and for that reason too the writ petition cannot be allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the context of what we have stated above, the remedy of filing a civil suit may be left open to him. It is not for us to make any observation in that regard. If such a remedy is open to him, he can pursue it without our saying so. We refuse to express any opinion on that question. 8. This writ petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. The stay order dated 7-1-1977, as modified by the order dated 12-10-1977, stands vacated. No order, however, is made as to costs.