JUDGMENT R. A. Sharma, J. 1. Janta Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nagla Birkhu, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the college) is an Intermediate College and has been recognised under U. P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The college has a scheme of administration in accordance with Sec. 16-A of the Act. 2. Respondent no. 5 Sri Rajvir Singh Verma is the acting principal of the college. He was suspended by the committee of management of the college by the resolution dated 9-10-1988 and this suspension order is said to have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 6-12-1988. It is further alleged that services of the respondent no. 5, Sri Rajvir Singh Verma were terminated by the committee of management on 8-12-1988. According to the scheme of administration of the college the term of the committee of management is three years and if newly elected committee of management does not take charge within one month after the expiry of three years, the term of the old committee of management shall come to an end, Clause 7 of the scheme of administration of the college further provides that after expiry of three years and one month Regional Deputy Director of Education shall appoint 'Prabandh Sanchalak', who will have full power of management. As the term of the committee of management has expired and no new committee was elected, the Regional Deputy Director of Education appointed a 'Prabandh Sanchalak' in exercise of his power under clause 7 of the scheme of administration of the college and the college is under the control of the said 'Prabandh Sanchalak'. 3. 'Prabandh Sanchalak' vide his order dated 6-9-1989 has revoked the order of suspension and also the order of termination of the services of respondent no. 5. 4. The petitioner is a teacher in the college and claims to have been appointed by the committee of management as acting principal after the suspension of respondent No. 5. He has challenged the order dated 6-9-1989, passed by the 'Prabandh Sanchalak' by means of this writ petition. 5. 4. The petitioner is a teacher in the college and claims to have been appointed by the committee of management as acting principal after the suspension of respondent No. 5. He has challenged the order dated 6-9-1989, passed by the 'Prabandh Sanchalak' by means of this writ petition. The grounds on which the order dated 6-9-1989 has been challenged by the petitioner are (i) that 'Prabandh Sanchalak' does not have the power of management as he is appointed for holding election of the committee of management only, and as such cannot revoke the orders of suspension and termination of service of respondent No. 5, and (ii) after the orders of suspension and termination have been passed, they cannot be reviewed. 5. So far as the first ground pertaining to the power of 'Prabandh Sanchalak' is concerned, it is fully covered by clause 7 of the scheme of administration. Clause 7 of the scheme of administration is quoted below : (Hindi portion omitted-Editor) 6. Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration gives full power of management (Prabandhikaran) to the 'Prabandh Sanchalak'. Scheme of administration of the college contemplates continuity of management without break with the committee of management for three years and one month and thereafter with the 'Prabandh Sanchalak', if no new committee of management is elected in the meantime. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 'Prabandh Sanchalak' has no power to revoke the orders of suspension and termination is not as such sustainable. So far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it also has no force. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 6-9-1989, it is clear that the committee of management has passed the order of termination without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent No. 5 and further the charges on which the order of termination is based are not such so as to warrant the dismissal of the services of respondent No. 5. Services of a teacher of an Intermediate College cannot be terminated without approval of the Education Commission. The papers relating to the termination of services of respondent No. 5 has not yet been sent to the Commission. The management can always recall its order of suspension and termination of services of a teacher and in this connection principal of review of judicial orders cannot be applied. The papers relating to the termination of services of respondent No. 5 has not yet been sent to the Commission. The management can always recall its order of suspension and termination of services of a teacher and in this connection principal of review of judicial orders cannot be applied. Power to appoint and terminate services of an employee is not a judicial power but relates to the managerial function of the employer. Till the right of any third person intervened in the matter, it is always open to the employer to recall the orders of suspension and termination. In this case no right of any one has intervened and the order of termination has not yet been sent to the commission, the 'Prabandh Sanchalak' was fully justified to revoke the orders of suspension and termination. 7. In this connection it may also be noticed that the petitioner is only a teacher of the college and he was directed by the committee of management to function as an acting principal after the suspension of respondent No. 5. His function as acting principal automatically comes to an end the moment respondent No. 5 is reinstated. Petitioner has no lien on the post of the principal of the college and his working as acting principal was only a stop gap arrangement during the pendency of the proceedings against respondent No. 5. He, as such, does not have even a locus standi to challenge the impugned order dated 6-9-1989. 8. For the reasons given above, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.