JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Daya Chand Dixit, an Engineering/Drawing Instructor in Mechanical Engineering in Prem Mahavidyalaya Polytechnic, Mathura prays for a writ of certiorari quashing an order dated June 21, 1977 terminating his services with effect from July 31, 1977 and also a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents to the petitioner to pay him his salary from August 1, 1977 and to allow him also to work on his post. 2. The case of the petitioner is that having obtained a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in 1st Division and after working as a Mechanical Engineer in some private Workshops he appeared at a selection held by the Staff Selection Board for selecting four candidates for appointment as Engineering/Drawing Instructors (Mechanical Engineering) in the Prem Mahavidyalaya Polytechnic. The posts were advertised by the Polytechnic and a Staff Selection Board constituted under Section 22-E of U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 (U.P. Act No XVII of 1962 as amended by U.P. Act No 35 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) placed the petitioner at serial no. 3 in the order of merit He joined the post in pursuance of an order of appointment contained in the memorandum, dated November 17, 1975 issued under the signatures of the Principal of the Polytechnic who has been impleaded as respondent no 3 in the petition, This appointment, according to the petitioner, was on probation for one year with effect from the date of his joining, namely, November 19, 1975 though no formal letter of appointment on probation was a actually issued to him by the Committee of Management which was the appointing authority. The two other persons, who were also selected along with the petitioner, joined later than him in December 1975. The petitioner had been appointed against a clear permanent vacancy and since his statutory period of probation of one year was not extended any further he became a confirmed employee with effect from November 19, 1976. 3. The case of the petitioner further is that the third respondent was not favourably disposed towards him and out of malice purported to terminate his services by the impugned notice dated June 21, 1977 which was received by him on June 27, 1977. 3. The case of the petitioner further is that the third respondent was not favourably disposed towards him and out of malice purported to terminate his services by the impugned notice dated June 21, 1977 which was received by him on June 27, 1977. This notice, according to the petitioner, is also vitiated as it has been issued in contravention of Section 22-C (1) of the Act which requires insurance of any such notice only with the prior approval in writing of the Director of Technical Education, U.P. (respondent No. 1), without obtaining any such prior approval. The petitioner's representation, dated July 9/1972 (annexure `4' to the petition) to the third respondent and the one dated July 25, 1977 (annexure `5' to the writ petition) addressed to the Committee of Management for the recall of the impugned notice bore no fruit. Meanwhile, the petitioner wanted to appear in another selection for the post of Engineering/Drawing instructor (Automobiles) in the Polytechnic to be held on August 12, 1977 but the third respondent assured him that in case be withdraw the allegations contained in the representations made him earlier, the petitioner will be appointed in the vacancy created on account of the promotion of one Shri R. B. Gupta to the post of a lecturer in Automobile Engineering in the Institute without facing a fresh selection as he had already been approved by the Staff Selection Board in October, 1995. Similar assurance, according to the petitioner, was given to him by two members of the said Board who were present when the third respondent had extended that assurance to him. Petitioner claims that on this account he did not appear before the Selection Board Further, a representation made by the petitioner to the Minister of Education, U P, did not yield any result, he, therefore, had to approach this court through the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner has assailed the notice of termination of his services mainly on three grounds. 4. The petitioner has assailed the notice of termination of his services mainly on three grounds. Firstly, it had been issued mala fide by the third respondent Secondly the third respondent had no authority to terminate the petitioner's services because the Committee of Management, being vested with the power to appoint him alone could do so, and, thirdly, that being a confirmed teacher, his services could not have been terminated, and in any case, even on the assumption that he was a temporary teacher no notice of termination could be issued except with the prior approval in writing of the Director of Technical Education, U. P. 5. The case of the Polytechnic, as contained in the counter-affidavit sworn by Sri M P. Pathak, the third respondent, in substance, is that the petitioner was not a teacher for purposes of the Act, for approval about his selection was sought from the Director of Technical Education, U P. and that he was neither appointed on probation nor could he claim to have become a confirmed teacher on expiry of any such period of probation. The petitioner's selection and appointment was only as an Instructor on a temporary basis. The notice of termination became necessary because upon the reversion of Sri B. B. Gupta to the post of Engineer/Drawing Instructor one such Instructor became surplus in the Institution and it became necessary to terminate the services of one of the Instructors who had been appointed on a temporary basis as a result of the selection held in the year 1975 wherein the petitioner had also been selected. The -petitioner was chosen for termination of services by the appointing authority on the basis of the report about the work and conduct of the various Instructors by the head of the Mechanical Engineering Department. In effect, therefore, the case of the contesting respondent is that the choice of the petitioner for termination of services was based upon a comparative evaluation of the perform since of the various Instructors appointed alongwith him in a temporary capacity. The allegation that the notice of termination was the outcome of mala fide was controverted. 6. The ground of mala fides has, in our opinion, not been established in the case. The allegation that the notice of termination was the outcome of mala fide was controverted. 6. The ground of mala fides has, in our opinion, not been established in the case. The necessary facts from which an inference of mala fides in the insurance of the impugned notice of termination could be allegedly drawn have not been standi in the writ petition. The assertions from which we are asked to draw an inference of mala fide on the part of the third respondent relate to the alleged conduct of the third respondent subsequent to the date of the notice, namely, June 21. 1977, Besides we find ourselves unable to attribute any mala fides to the the third respondent from that has been stated in the writ petition or from the facts contained in the petitioner's representation dated July 25, 1977 (annexure 5')-made to the Managing Committee. There is hardly a allegation even in the representation from which it can be inferred that the third respondent was ill disposed towards the petitioner. In these circumstances, even if. "e were to believe that the allegations contained in the representation, dated July 25, 1977 were withdrawn by the petitioner on some assurance by the third ''respondent, as alleged by him. it would not be enough to hold on the basis of the material on the record of the case that in issuing the impugned notice the this respondent was actuated by malafides. 7. The order of appointment of the petitioner (annexure`2' to the writ petition) expressly says that he was being appointed "on purely temporary basis... with effect from the dale of his joining the duties in the polytechnic" and that "his appointment on probation will be considered in due course " The claim of the petitioner, therefore, that he had been appointed on probation for a period of one year cannot be countenanced. Besides the definite assertion in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner had been appointed on a temporary basis and on approval was sought from the Director of Technical Education, U P, Kanpur for his appointment and further that the case of the petitioner was never considered by the Managing Committee for being put on probation till the time that his services were terminated. In view of these circumstances, it would not be legitimate to hold that the petitioner had been placed on probation at the time of his appointment or that he stood confirmed in his post on expiry of a period of one year from the date of his joining, namely, November 19, 1975 as an Engineering/Drawing Instructor (Mechanical Engineering). 8. The U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 was amended in the year 1974 by U. P. Act No 35 of 1974 which received the assent of the President on December 5, 1974 and it was published in the U P. Extra-Ordinary, dated December 7, 1974. By the Amending Act, new Sections 22-A to 22 G were added which dealt inter alia, with the matter of appointment of teachers, the procedure for selection for such appointment and the dismissal, removal etc. of the teacher. We may, at this stage, read Sections 22 F and 22-G which alone are relevant our purposes : "22-F Procedure of selection of Principal and teacher. - (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter specified, no person shall be appointed as Principal or tea .her in an affiliated institution unless he - (a) Possesses the qualifications laid down in the regulations or has been exempted from such qualifications under sub-section (1) of Section 22-E; (b) has bee recommended by the selection committee constituted under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), as the case may be, of the said section and approved by the Director : Provided that where the Director is satisfied that for any affiliated institution no candidate possessing all the qualifications laid down in the regulation available for appointment, he may permit the affiliated institution to employ a temporary measure any suitable person for a period not exceeding one year. Provided further that such period of one year may be extended with prior approval of the Director: Provided also that in the case of leave vacancy or of a vacancy occurring for a part of the session of the affiliated institution, it shall be lawful tor the Committee of Management to appoint a Principal or teacher, and in information of such an appointment shall be given forthwith to the Dire (2) The name of the selected candidate shall be forwarded for approval to the Director along with the list showing the names, qualifications and sue , particulars, as may be laid down by regulations of all candidates who may applied for selection. (3) The Director shall give his decision within two weeks of the receipt of the relevant papers mentioned in sub-section (-), failing which approval deemed to have been accorded. (4) Where the Director disapproves, for reasons to be recorded {"writing, of any names proposed under sub-section (1), the Management may, w weeks of the receipt of the disapproval, make a representation against State Government whose decision in the matter shall be final. (5) Where a recommendation made under sub section (2) has been disapproved and the representation of the Management, if any, under sub-section (4) has been rejected, the selection committee shall proceed to select are another name for approval as provided by Section 22-E and this section. (6) Where the selection made under sub-section (5) is against disapproved and the representation, if any. against the disapproval has not been accepted, the Director may appoint any qualified person out of the list of he applying for the vacancy and such appointment be final. 9. A perusal of these provisions would indicate that except in cases covered by the provisions to sub-section (1), is provided under Section no person shall be appointed as a teacher in an affiliated institution (like the one in which the petitioner was serving) unless he possessed the requisite qualifications or had obtained exemption therefrom, had been recommended by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose and had been approved by the for such appointment. Mere selection, therefore, of a person as being fit for appointment by the Selection Committee would not enure to him been clothing him with the status of a tea her unless he was also been approved such appointment by the Director of Technical Education. Mere selection, therefore, of a person as being fit for appointment by the Selection Committee would not enure to him been clothing him with the status of a tea her unless he was also been approved such appointment by the Director of Technical Education. This provision in this respect in Section 22-F is couched in imperative language. The mere ta-a therefore, that a person was permitted to function as a teacher in a n after his selection by the duly constituted committee, would not confer upon hi legal recognition as a teacher for purposes of the Act which does no definition of the word "teacher." This is the view which commended if to Division Bench of this court in Lalit Mohan Misra and another v. Inspector of Schools and others, (1979 ALJ 1029) while dealing with the provisions of the U P: Intermediate Education Act which are pori-materia with those of the Act with which we are concerned. The Bench observed (in paragrapah that "the appointment of a person as a teacher CO effective on from the date approval is given and even if a person work before that, the same has no recognition under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The view of this court, this regard, seems to be faty consistent Dealing with Section 16-F (1) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, a Division Bench observed in the case of Arya Kanya Pathhshala and others v. Smt. Manorma Devi Agnihotri, (1971 ALJ 983) that "if a person is appointed as a Principal of an institution without prior approval of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the appointment is, in the eve of law, no appointment at all Gulati, J. held in Gochar Krishik Inter College v. Deputy Director of Education and others, (1975 ALB 323) that where the initial appointment of a teacher is a contrary to a mandatory provision of law like Section 16-F (1) of to U. P. Intermediate Education Act, the termination of his services in contravention of Section 16-G (3) (a) of that Act, without obtaining approval of the Inspector of Schools before issuing the notice of termination, could not be held to be invalid. 10. Section 22-G (I) of the Act provides that no teacher would be served with a notice of termination except with the prior approval in writing of the Director. 10. Section 22-G (I) of the Act provides that no teacher would be served with a notice of termination except with the prior approval in writing of the Director. Admittedly in the instant case, no such prior approval was obtained before the impugned notice was served upon the petitioner. The action of the third respondent and of the Managing Committee to that extent was clearly contrary to the mandatory provision contained in Section 22-G (1) of the Act. 11. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent that this provision does pot apply to to a person, like the petitioner, who was appointed in a temporary capacity. The clear language used in Section 22-G (I) permits no such distinction. On its plain terms, the protective provision of sub-section (1) of Section 22-G is equally available to a temporary teacher. It advances the object with which Sections 22-A to 22-G were added to the Act by the amending legislation of the year 1974. The learned counsel for the respondent has in making the submission, overlooked the fact that by introducing these provisions, the State Legislature consciously brought the Act in parimaleria with the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as amended by it in the year 1958. 12. The petitioner can avail of no protection under Section 22-G (1) of the Act. That protection is available to a "teacher. Which he is not. In spite of being possessed of the requisite qualifications and of having been selected by a Se fiction Committee, his appointment does not bear the seal of approval of the Director of Technical Education. It is, indeed, an unfortunats case for the approval was not sought by those who ought to have done so. Which he is not. In spite of being possessed of the requisite qualifications and of having been selected by a Se fiction Committee, his appointment does not bear the seal of approval of the Director of Technical Education. It is, indeed, an unfortunats case for the approval was not sought by those who ought to have done so. The petitioner, admittedly, was continuously working after his appointment and could not reasonably be expected to have through that the approval of the Director would not be sought yet, since the Act makes no exception from the requirement of the Director's approval to the appointment and does not countenance the status of a teacher for a person whose appointment has not been approved by the Director, be it due to the failure on the part of those who ought to have sought such approval, we have to hold that the ^impugned notice of termination was not invalid on account of the absence of approval for it by the Director of the Technical Education. 13. The submissions in support the pleas raised by the petitioner thus fail. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed but, in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.