JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This petition is directed against an order of the Manager of Gopi Ram Paliwai Intermediate college, Aligarh, terminating the service of Che petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the aforesaid college in June, 1968. He was appointed after the Managing committee had obtained approval of the District Inspector of Schools under Section 16 F of the U P. Intermediate Education Act. It, however, appears that some time in 1974 a Member of the Legislative Assembly raised the question of the validity of the appointment of the petitioner and several others on the ground that these persons were although the relations of the office bearers of the Managing Committee but they had been appointed as teachers in breach of the provision contained in Chapter III of Regulation 4 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. Pursuant to the aforesaid question, the Director of Education, Lucknow, wrote a letter on 2.7. 1974 to the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh requiring him to look into the matter and get the needful done by terminating the service of the petitioner and other teachers who were mentioned in that letter. On his June, the District Inspector of Schools directed the Manager, of Gopi Ram Haliwal Intermediate College, Aligarh through the letter dated 16th August, 1974 to terminate the service of the petitioner. The ground given in this letter was that as the petitioner was closely related to the Manager, he cold not have been appointed as a teacher in the said college in the year 1968. Upon the receipt of the said letter from the District Inspector of Schools, the Manager terminated the service of the petitioner on September 3, 1974. Apart from the petitioner, there were several other teachers whose services were terminated by the Manager on the said ground. Being aggrieved, the petitioner tiled the present writ. 3. Sri V.B. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the order of the District, Inspector of Schools directing the Manager of the College, Gopi Ram Paliwai to terminate the service of the petitioner is invalid as well as the District Inspector of Schools had no authority under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act to issue such a letter and to call upon the Manager to terminate the service of the petitioner. Counsel urged that the scheme for termination of the service of a teacher are given in the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. His service could, therefore, be terminated in accordance with the provisions made in the Act. As the petitioner's service had not been terminated in pursuance of the procedure, the order was invalid. 4. The next argument of the learned counsel was that since the petitioner was not given the opportunity before the termination order was passed either by the District Inspector of Schools or by the Manager, the impugned order was invalid 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is entitled to succeed on the second point. Hence, we do not consider it necessary to examine the first point and to give a concluded opinion on that point. 6. The admitted case of the parties is that the service of the petitioner was terminated by the Manager on 3rd September, 1974. This was done pursuant to the letter dated 16th August. 1974 which was taken by the Manager as the direction from the District Inspector of Schools. The District inspector of Schools was of the view that the petitioners appointment was invalid as be was related to the Manager of the College. Chapter III Regulation 4 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act prohibits the appointment of a person who is related to the Committee of Management. The aforesaid regulation reads as under: - "4. No teacher shall be appointed whether in a temporary or clear vacancy in an institution who is related to any member of the Committee of Management or the Principal or Headmaster, nor shall a Headmaster or Principal of appointed m an mu, on who is related to any member of the Co an (notes-of Manage,ne it. " 7. The case of respondent taken in the counter-affidavit was that the petitioner was the cousin oi the then Manager oi Gopi Ram Paliwai Intermediate College, Aligarh. However, the fact remains that the assertion made by the petitioner the it his services were terminated without giving any opportunity to him either by the Manager or by the District Inspector or Schools has not been controverted. Since the impugned order has resulted in the termination of the petition, it was necessary for the authorities to have given the petitioner an opportunity before the impugned order could be passed; 8. Since the impugned order has resulted in the termination of the petition, it was necessary for the authorities to have given the petitioner an opportunity before the impugned order could be passed; 8. It appears that another teacher Om Prakash Paliwai, who was similarly placed as the petitioner, filed a Writ petitioner no. 6459 of 1974 Om Prakash Palhval v. State of U.P. in this Court. The writ was allowed on 4.2.76 and the order of the District Inspector of Schools as well as the order of the Manager were quashed. We ate in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge in the said case. 9. In view of the above discussion, we allow the writ petition, set aside the orders of the District Inspector of Schools and the Manager of Gopi Ram Paliwai Intermediate College, Aligarh, dated 16th August, 1974 and 3rd September, 1974, respectively. The parties shall bear their own casts.