JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - The petitioner are the Managing Committee of the Vinay Kumar Higher Secondary School, Kurai Khera, district Kanpur, as also the Education Extension Society, through its Secretary. The petitioner runs a High School, which is recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. The petitioner was receiving a grant from the Education Department. 2. By an order dated 27th October, 1979 (Annexure 8' to the writ petition), the District Inspector of Schools directed that under the provisions of section 5 (1) of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teacher and other Employees) Act, 1971, he would operate the account singly instead of jointly, as was being done. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition. The petitioners were not sure as to the ground on which the impugned order was made. 3. In paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit filed by Prem Kant Saxena, Noter and Drafter in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur, it is stated that the order was made only on the ground of default contained in respondents letter dated 13th August, 1979 but not on the grounds specified in the petition. We asked for the counsel to produced the aforesaid letter. Annexure SA-2 is a copy of the letter dated 13th August, 1979. In it, it is stated that the petitioner has not paid the salary of a class IV employee Anand Swarup. from 1st August, 1978, to 14th December, 1978, and the petitioner was asked to pay his salary within ten days failing which action will be taken under section 5(1) of the Act. 4. In the supplementary affidavit along with which this letter has been filed, it is stated that Anand Swarup was employed in the institution from 1st January, 1978. It is further stated that Anand Swarup went on one days casual leave on 5th July, 1978, and did not return for duty. It is asserted that in place of Anand Swarup, one Rama Shanker was appointed and intimation of this fact was sent to the District Inspector of Schools. It is further stated that Anand Swarup went on one days casual leave on 5th July, 1978, and did not return for duty. It is asserted that in place of Anand Swarup, one Rama Shanker was appointed and intimation of this fact was sent to the District Inspector of Schools. It is also averred in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit that one Rama Shanker was appointed in place of Anand Swarup from 1st August, 1978, to 14tn December, 1978, and the same was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, vide his letter dated 21st December, 1978 and he was paid salary for that period. A copy of the letter dated 21st December, 1978, has been filed as Annexure SA-I to the supplementary affidavit. It is further averred that at the instance of the District Inspector of Schools, the services of Rama Shanker were terminated one Anand Swarup was re-employed from 15th December, 1978, and he has been regularly getting his salary since then. 5. In view of the fact that Anand Swarup, who was on probation, had absented himself from duty, without leave, and in view of the fact that one Rama Shanker had been appointed in his place, obviously, Anad Swarup was not entitled to his salary for the period from 1st August, 1978, to 14th December, 1978. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 27th October, 1979, was without justification and arbitrary. 6. Some employees of the institution have been impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. They assert that they are being paid their salary by the District Inspector of Schools. We are not going to enter into the controversy as to whether the services of some employees were validly terminated or not or whether fresh employee appointed in their place were validly appointed. We are only concerned in this petition with the validity of the impugned order dated 27th October, 1979, by which single operation of account was ordered. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 27th October, 1979, is set aside. In view of the observations made in the judgment, no direction regarding relief (n) is being issued. Parties will bear their own costs. The interim orders if any, are vacated.