JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - There is a Society known as Dev Nagri Polytechnic Society, Meerut, which runs a polytechnic known as Dev Nagri Polytechnic, Partapur, Meerut which is an affiliated institution of the Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh, which has been constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 (U. P.Act No. 17 of 1962) (hereafter to be referred as the Act'). 2. A post of Lecturer in Civil Engineering (Department was advertised and selection com-miittee was constituted. In the Committee one Sri Khwaja Shamim, Professor and Head of the Civil Engineering Department of Zakir Hussain College of Engineering and Technology, was nominated as a technical expert. (The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee and his name was duly recommended for appointment. The report of the Selection Committee was endorsed by the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 6-12-1981 which also decided to send the name of the petitioner for approval to the Director of Technical Education. In anticipation of the approval of the Director of Technical Education, an appointment letter No. 37/ 256 dated 6-12-1981 was sent to the petitioner offering him the post of lecturer in civil engineering. The appointment was subject to the approval of the Director of Technical Education and was on a probation for two years and during the probationary period the petitioner's services could be terminated at any time on one month's notice. The appointment of the petitioner on the post of lecturer in civil engineering was approved by the Director of Technical Education by letter No. 2206/E-35-X-6(M) dated 24-4-1982. 3. The approval of the Director of Technical Education was subject to certain conditions one of the conditions was that the technical expert as selected by the Director had been called for attending the meeting of the selection committee. The Principal of the institution found that the technical expert though called had not participated in the meeting of the selection committee and he considered that in view of the Director's order, mentioned earlier, the selection of the petitioner was irregular as the Selection Committee was not properly constituted as the technical expert nominated by the Director had not participated in its proceedings. Consequently by means of letter dated 20-7-1982 the petitioner's services were terminated. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Consequently by means of letter dated 20-7-1982 the petitioner's services were terminated. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Section 22-E of the Act which is relevant for the decision of the present writ petition is reproduced below: "22-E. Appointment of teachers.- (1) Of qualifications for appointment as Principal and of teachers, shall be laid down by regulations: Provided that the Board may, after considering the requirement of minimum qualifications having regard to his experience, education and other attainments. (2) There shall be constituted in every affiliated institution a selection committee with the head of such institution as an ex officio member thereof, for the purpose of selecting candidates for appointment as teacher in the affiliated institution. (3) For the selection of Principal of an affiliated institution, there shall likewise be constituted a selection committee of three members one of whom shall be a person not belonging to the district in which the affiliated institution is located, selected by the committee of management out of the regional panel referred to in sub-section (4). (4) The Director shall prepare for each region a panel of persons to act as nominated members in the selection committee referred to in sub-section (3). (5) The constitution of the selection committee referred to in sub-secs. (2) and (3), the conduct of business at their meetings, the preparation of regional panels and other matters shall be regulated by regulations." 6. It will be seen that under sub-s. (2) a selection committee has to be constituted in every affiliated institution for the purpose of selecting teachers for appointment as teachers in the affiliated institutions. Sub-s. (3) provides for a selection committee for selection of a Principal of an affiliated college. It is further provided therein that the committee shall consist of three members, one of whom shall be a person not belonging to the District in which the affiliated institution is located selected by the committee of management out of the panel referred to in sub-s. (4). Sub-section (4) provides that the Director shall prepare for each region a panel of persons to act as nominated members in the selection committee referred to in sub-s. (3). 7. Sub-section (4) provides that the Director shall prepare for each region a panel of persons to act as nominated members in the selection committee referred to in sub-s. (3). 7. It is clear that when a Principal of an affiliated institution is being selected, a person on the panel nominated by the Director under sub-s. (4) of Section 22-E of the Act has to be included in the committee constituted under sub-s. (3). There is, however, no such requirement for a selection committee constituted for appointment of a teacher in an affiliated college. 8. The Director of Technical Education consequently could not have imposed a condition that the technical expert nominated by him should have been called in the meeting of the selection committee for appointment of the petitioner as a teacher. 9. The Principal also could not, therefore, have terminated the petitioner's appointment on the ground that the technical expert nominated by the Director of Technical Education had not participated in the meeting of the selection committee in which the petitioner's name had been recommended. 10. The petitioner's services were not terminated under the contract of employment on the ground that the performance of the petitioner during the probationary period was not up to the mark. The petitioner's services were terminated with immediate effect and he was not given the required one month's notice which had to be given to probationers. 11. The procedure is prescribed under S. 22-G of the Act for termination of services of a principal or a teacher. Admittedly, the procedure prescribed under S. 22-G of the Act has not been followed. 12. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed, the order dated 20-7-1982 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) is quashed as being bad for non-compliance with the terms of S. 22-G of the Act. The petitioner is directed to be treated as in service and shall be entitled to all his benefits he would have been entitled to. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.