JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - Two orders have been challenged in this petition. The first is dated 24th July, 1974 whereby the termination of the services of the respondent No. 2 Ram Pyare Pandey by the petitioner - Management was declared illegal by the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur by the same order, the Management was directed to reinstate Ram Pyare Pandey, who was at that time a clerk in C.P. Krishi Udyog Inter College, Moosanagar, District Kanpur. The other order is dated 4.11.1974 whereby exercising powers under Section 5 of the U.P. High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter described as the Act), the District Inspector of Schools has directed that Salaries Account of the Teachers and other employees of he Institution shall be operated by him singly. 2. The main thrust of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is against the order dated 24.7.1974 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. The argument is that as the law then stood, the approval of the District Inspector of Schools before termination of the service of member of the clerical staff of a recongised Institution was not required. The District Inspector of Schools was hence wholly wrong in holding that the termination of the services of Ram Pyare Pandey was illegal. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a full Bench Decision of this Court reported in Magan Ram Yadav v. Deputy Director of Education and others, AIR 1980 Alld. 68 : 1979 ALJ 1351. This Full Bench does seem to support the contention of the learned counsel that prior to the insertion of Regulation 100 in Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, the previsions of Section 16 - G of the Intermediate Education Act requiring prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools before the termination of the services of the teachers were not applicable to the members of the clerical staff. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, invited our attention to a Government order issued on 4th June 1966 whereby it was provided that punishment and appeal of Headmasters, principals, teachers and clerks including shall be regulated accordance with the provisions of Section 16 - G and the Regulations framed thereunder. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, invited our attention to a Government order issued on 4th June 1966 whereby it was provided that punishment and appeal of Headmasters, principals, teachers and clerks including shall be regulated accordance with the provisions of Section 16 - G and the Regulations framed thereunder. It was urged that this Government order is clearly referable to the powers vested in the State Government under Section 9 (4) of the Intermediate Education Act and congruently it had statutory once binding on all the the recognised institutions. There is no manner of doubt that this Government order has statutory force and is clearly traceable to power of the State Government under Section 9 (4) of the Intermediate Education Act. This Government order dated 4.6.1966 was admittedly in force when the management purported to termination the services of the Second respondent. In view of the provisions of the Government order it is apparent that the termination of the services of the respondent no. 2 was completely null and void in as much as admittedly the approval of the District Inspector of Schools was not sought accorded prior to the termination of the services of the second respondents. Unfortunately, this Government Order does not appear to have been noticed by the Full Bench in the case of Magan Ram Yadav (supra). 4. The Full Bench mainly relied on the status of para 143 of the Education Code and it ruled that it did not have any statutory force. We do not, however, wish to pronounce any concluded option on this controversy. Nor do we consider it necessary in this case to refer the matter to a larger Bench for having a fresh look on the decision of the Full Bench for the reasons which we shall presently state. 5. It is not denied that apart from the Government Order of 1966, referred to above, there has been a legislative charge as from 1975 by the insertion of Regulation 10 in the IIIrd Chapter of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act applying the provisions of Section 16 - D to the members of the Clerical staff also. The clear legislative policy, therefore, is that even the members of the clerical staff . ought to enjoy the same protection which is available to teachers under Section 16 - G of the Intermediate Education Act. The clear legislative policy, therefore, is that even the members of the clerical staff . ought to enjoy the same protection which is available to teachers under Section 16 - G of the Intermediate Education Act. It is true that in this case the termination of the services of the second respondent was prior in point of time than the amendment in the Regulations. However, it does seem that the Government was anxious to protect the members of the Clerical staff also from arbitrary actions of the Management in regard to their tenure right from 1966. 6. Further, respondent No. 2 has been serving the institution as a clerk and receiving salaries under the Payment of Salaries Act since the year 1974. It will hence be very harsh on him if he is now asked to go out is of the Institution of the ground that in the year 1974 the approval of the District Inspector of Schools was not required. We do not think that we should interfere in a matter like this after a lapse of more than 14 years. For all these reasons we cannot persuaded to interfere with the impugned order after a lapse of such a long time. 7. So far as the order dated 4.11.1974 concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has informed us that since then the joint operation of the salary account has been restored. His only grievance in this connection is that the District Inspector of Schools insists that the salary bills should be counter signed by the Manager of the Institution whereas this power has been assigned by the management under the bye - laws of the society to the Assistant Manager. This grievance can be looked into by the District Inspector of Schools at his own level and the same need not concern us in these proceedings. 8. Subject to the observations made above in regard to the operation of salarieam account, therefore this petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.