D. K. SETH, J. The petitioners, confirmed as Assistant Teachers in Primary Section of Navli later College, Navli, district Ghazipur, by means of this writ petition, seek quashing of the notice dated 4th May, 1995 (Anne xure 4 to the writ petition) by which their services were sought to be termi nated with consequential relief regarding continuance of their service arid payment of salary. 2. The said Navli Inter College governed under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U. P. Secondary Education Services Com mission and Selection Boards Act (U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982) and U. P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971) imparted education from Class I to Class XII, of which Class I to Class V conducted in Primary Section, and integral part of the said College, was receiving grant-in-aid of the Intermediate, Section being Class VI to Class XII and was within the purview of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971. By or under a Government Order dated 6th September 1989, all Primary Sections of 393 Higher Secondary Schools including the said College in the State of Uttar Pradesh were brought in the list of Institutions receiving grant-in-aid from the State ^government within the purview of U. P, Act No. 24 of 1971. Each of the petitioners who were appointed on diverse dated in the Primary Section of the said College were duly confirmed respectively. Originally the petitioners were being paid by the Management but subsequently with effect from 1st October, 1982, the petitioners were being paid regularly from Government Funds by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur hereinafter referred to as dios, in terms of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1971. On 4th of May, 1995, notice of even date being Annexure 4 collectively were served upon the petitioners purporting to ter minate the service of each of the petitioners by the management, against which a representation was made before the DIOS being Annexure 5 to the writ petition upon which the DIOS, by order dated 20th May, 1995 (Anne xure 6) directed the Management that the decision dated 4th May, 1995 should be kept in abeyance till further orders. Despite such order, on 1st July, 1995 on the re-opening of the School after vacation, the Attendance Registrar was not made available to the petitioners when they attended the School, due to which a representation (Annexure 7) was presented on 1st July, 1995 before the DIOS. Despite the order dated 5th July, 1995 issued by the DTOS even after the re-opening the Schools on 10th July, 1995 under the orders of the Education Department, the petitioners were not permitted to function and enter the institution and sign the register by the Manage ment who also did not permit the students of the Primary Section to enter the Institution. Due to such reason, the petitioners held classes of the Primary Section outside the School premises and made further representa tion on 13th July, 1995 (Annexure 10 ). Despite order dated 20th May, 1995 passed by the DIOS the situation has not been altered. 3. On this background, the petitioners contend that their services being that of permanent Assistant Teachers could not be dispensed with except in accordinance with the procedure prescribed under Rules 35, 36 and 37 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act without prior approval of the Secondary Education Service Commission, as envisaged under Section 21 ot U. P. Act No. 5 of 1982 and no such procedure having been followed, the order of termination sought to be effected by the impugned notice contained in Annexure 4 are non-est and hence the aforesaid prayers made in the writ petition by the petitioners. 4. Mr. Asbok Khare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the peti tioners, contended that the said order contained in Annexure 4 purports to close down the Primary Section of the said Institution which is not permissible under Regulation 10, Chapter VII of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. The said Act applies even to Primary Section of the Intermediate College where Primary Section forms an integral part of the same Institution which is being managed by the same Management Committee and it is more so by reason of amendment made in the definition of institution in Section 2 (b) of the 1921 Act where the phrase "part of an Institution" was also included. By reason thereof, according to him, the provisions of 1971 Act and 1921 Act are also attracted. By reason thereof, according to him, the provisions of 1971 Act and 1921 Act are also attracted. By reason of Regulations 35, 36 and 37 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act read with Section 21 of 1982 Act, the services of the petitioners could not be terminated without the prior approval of DIOS as contemplated in the respective provisions. Despite the order dated 20th May, 1995 (Annexure 6) directing the order dated 4th May, 1995 (Annexure 4) to be kept in abeyance, no purposeful result has been obtained despite successive representations and successive orders including the order dated 5th July, 1995 (Annexure B ). Therefore, Writ Court should come in aid for enforcing the law and the legal provisions. Therefore, he prays that the order and the notice contained in Annexure 4 should be quashed and all consequential reliefs should be made available to the petitioners not only in the interest of the Institution but also in the interest of the students who are also the worst sufferers. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 had supported the orders passed by the DIOS. 6. Dr. Padia appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 vehemently opposed the contention of Mr. Khare. He took a Preliminary objection that the petitioners having availed of the alternative remedy by way of making a representation whereupon the respondents haying acted upon, they can not maintain the writ petition. In support he relied on the decisions in the case of K. S, Rashid and Sons v. I. T. I. Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207 ; Mulak Shah v. The Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1958 All 676 and Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner, AIR 1967 Gal 382. Relying on the decision in the case of Commissioner, Lucknow Division v. Kumari Frsmlaia Mishra, AIR 1977 SC 334 , his second contention was that on writ petition lies against a Manager or Committee of Management since none of them are statutory authorities and, therefore, the private management is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. On the question of merits relying on the decision in the case of Km. On the question of merits relying on the decision in the case of Km. Premlata Mishra (supra) he submitted that the primary section was pot an integral part of the said Institution and that the amendment made in the definition of institution can not be said to be attracted because though the amendment in the definition was not there when the appeal in the case of Km, Premlata Mishra (supra) was filled, but during the pendency of the appeal, the change was brought in. Therefore, on the present facts where the cause of action arose long after the amendment of the said definition of the Institution, the ratio decided in Km. Premlata (supra) is attracted. In support he also relied on paragraph 12 of the decision in the case of Smt. Samantika Chatterjee v. Regional Inspectors of Girla School, Allahabad, 1990 (1) UPLBEC 239, and submitted that a Primary Section can not be an integral part of an Inter College, According to him, Regulation 18, Chapter VII of the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act deals with the question of recognition only for the purpose of holding examinations and that the said Chapter relates to Class VIII to Class XII. 7. The contention that since the petitioners having availed of the alternative remedy and that there being alternative remedy as contended by Dr. Padia, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the judgments cited at the bar does not appeal to me in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Inasmuch as the exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary. The bar on account of availability of alterna tive remedy is not an absolute bar which is a settled law by now. It is established law that if circumstances demand, jurisdiction under Article 226 can very well be exercised in the discretion of the court despite existence or availability of alternative remedy. Besides in the present case, as disclosed in the writ petition, which also could not be denied by Dr. Padia that alternative remedy as suggested by Dr. Padia has not been able to give complete relief. The writ jurisdiction is exercised in order to give adequate speedy remedy. Besides in the present case, as disclosed in the writ petition, which also could not be denied by Dr. Padia that alternative remedy as suggested by Dr. Padia has not been able to give complete relief. The writ jurisdiction is exercised in order to give adequate speedy remedy. In the present case, closing down of a School contrary to law as has been sought to be made out requires a very speedy remedy in the interest of the students who are not being permitted to attend classes. It is the interest of the students which is paramount. Any delay would result into a stalmate jeopardising the interest of the petitioners along with those of the students. It was in the interest of the students that the case can not be allowed to continue any further. In this case, despite the order dated 20th May, 1995 and 5th July, 1995, no tangible result has bean achieved in those matter of stalemate created in the situation. This very circumstance requires for a speedy remedy which could only be available through invocation of writ jurisdiction. The alternative remedy as suggested by Dr. Padia by way of making representation to the DIOS as it appears from the fact disclosed would not yield such result which can be said to have given adequate relief to the petitioner. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it can not be said that by resorting to alternative remedy, adequate relief has been availed of particularly when the respondent has not compiled with the order of the DIOS. In such case it is not open to the respondents to raise such objection. The facts as disclosed required an active intervention or activating the writ jurisdiction inasmuch as the orders of the DIOS having been non-chalantly, violated, it is desirable that writ jurisdiction should be activated. Dr. Padia has not been able to draw my attention to any provision by which any mechanism or machinery has been provided for effectively implementing or executing the order issued by the DIOS. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the first contention regarding ; preliminary objection to the maintainability of writ proceedings as raised by Dr. Padia and, as such| the same is overruled. 8. The other preliminary objection raised by Dr. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the first contention regarding ; preliminary objection to the maintainability of writ proceedings as raised by Dr. Padia and, as such| the same is overruled. 8. The other preliminary objection raised by Dr. Padia that the Manager and the Committee of Management being private individual and private body are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. By now the theory of agency and instrumentality of the State has been accepted as to bring any authority within the purview of the Act, It is an established position that even when a private individual who in discharge of public duty is required to enforce or obliged to give effect to its obligation created by the statute and all of its activities having been encompassed within the statutory provision without leaving any discretion as in the present case aided with the fact that some authorities under the statute having intervened and have not been able to obtain the desired result in the matter of enforcement of statutory provision and contravention of statutory obligations can be termed as failure to dis charge public duty and statutory obligation be the statutory authorities. There fore, the present dispute can not be kept confined within the ambit as sought to be espoused by Dr. Padia as private dispute particularly when such dispute has the effect or offending statutory provisions coupled with jeopardising the welfare object for which such statutes have been enacted. In the present case, the dispute has travelled beyond the realm of private dispute and has taken the form shape of a dispute with regard to the statutory provisions, statutory obligations public duty and welfare of the Society involving statutory authorities being respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the contention of Dr. Padia with regard to his second preliminary objection. 9. In the aforesaid context, an examination of the facts and the legal position as discussed hereinafter reveals that the Primary Section of the said College is an integral part of the Institution. It has been asserted in para graph 2 of the writ petition that Primary Section is an integral part of the Institution. The notices of termination, as has been pointed out by Mr. It has been asserted in para graph 2 of the writ petition that Primary Section is an integral part of the Institution. The notices of termination, as has been pointed out by Mr. Kb are, have been issued by the Management of the Intermediate College and thereby be submits that there is but only one Management, one Principal and one Manager for the whole of the Institution. A perusal of Annexure 4 reveals that the said letter was signed by the Manager, Navli Inter College. Dr. Padia has also not controverted in the course of his argument that there was any separate Committee Section. He has also not disputed the assertion made by Mr. Kb are that there is but only one Managing Committee for the whole of the Institution. 10. On the other hand, his contention was that the Primary Section, though may be managed by the same Committee of Management, yet the came can not be treated as an integral part of the said Inter College. According to him, the Primary Section is governed by the U. P. Basic Education Act and not by 1921 Act. 11. In the case of Premlata (supra), the changed definition of the expression institution was not taken into consideration. The facts of the said case were different from the case at hand. In the case of Premlata (supra), the Primary Section was run by the College independently and was neither registered by the Government nor affiliated by any local body nor any grant-in-aid was being taken to run the Sections of the College which had its own Rules and Regulations to conduct the Basic Section. Whereas in the present case the Primary Section received grant-in-aid and is also recognised by the Government and was not indepedently run by the Inter mediate College. The Primary Section is run by the same management under the control of the same Manager and the same Principal. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept the proposition stressed by Dr. Pacha, relying on the case of Premlata (supra ). 12. On the other hand, in the case of Smt. Samantika Chatterjee (supra), it has been held in paragraph 12 as under : "12. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept the proposition stressed by Dr. Pacha, relying on the case of Premlata (supra ). 12. On the other hand, in the case of Smt. Samantika Chatterjee (supra), it has been held in paragraph 12 as under : "12. It is an admitted position that Class I to V are comprised in the Primary Section Classes VI, VII and VIII and Class VI in parti cular, can by no stretch of imagination be considered to be an integral part of a recognised Higher Secondary School or Intermediate College, if the reasoning given by the Supreme Court in Prem Lata Misras case (supra) and by this Court in Monad Singhs case (supra), is applied. It is not the case of the respondents nor, can it be, that the students or Classes VI, VII and VIII of the India Girls Inter-College, Allahabad appear in any examination conducted by the Boz Board. It is conceded that for the students of the said classes an internal examination is held by the institution concerned. Therefore, for the purpose of automatic promotion to the C. I. grade teachers who are assigned the task of teaching Class V and teachers who are assigned the task of teaching Classes VI, VII and VIII stand on the same footing. There is no rational basis for segregating teachers who are employed for teaching the students of Classes I to V and the teachers who are assigned the task of teaching Classes VI, VII and VIII. The classification, therefore, is on the face of it arbitrary. The decision/clarification of the State Government is, therefore, liable to be struck down on this score too. Last but not the least, Regulation 7 (2) may now, be read : "wherein an institution any teacher working in the J. T. C. /b. T. C. grade has passed intermediate or an equivalent examination or is a trained graduate and has completed five years service in that grade he shall be promoted in the C. T. grade by the Committee of Management and information of such promotion shall be immediately conveyed to the Inspector. " It will be remembered that Regulation 7 (2) forms part of Chapter II, which was substituted under the Government Notification dated 7th July, 1976. " It will be remembered that Regulation 7 (2) forms part of Chapter II, which was substituted under the Government Notification dated 7th July, 1976. It may also be noted that the source of the Regulation contained in Chapter II is Section 21 (i) of the U. P. Act 26 of 1975 and this provision has already been quoted above. It opens with a non-obstante clause-notwithstanding. The plain meaning of the provisions of Section 21 (1) of the U. P. Act 26 of 1975 is that in spite of the provisions of the Act, the State Government id empowered to make Regulations with respect to matters contained in Chapter II. It, therefore, follows that the State Government is empowered to frame regulations in spite of the definition of recognised as contained in Section 2 (d) of the Act. It is also apparent that the institution in the Regulation under reference has to be assigned the meaning as given to that expression in Section 2 (b) of the Act as substituted by Section 2 of the U. P. Act 26 of 1975, We have already extracted the definition above. In the context and setting of Regulation 7 (2), there can be no difficulty in taking the view that a teacher working in J. T. C. /b. T. C. grade and assigned the task of taking the primary classes attached to a recognised Intermediate College of Higher Secondary School or High School would be considered to be working in the part of the institution, "as the case may be". That apart, the workings of Regulation 7 (2) are wide enough to include all the teachers working in the J. T. C. /b. T. C. grade in an institution irrespective of the class assigned to them. It makes no difference whether a teacher is allowed to teach students of Class V or of Classes VI, VII or VIII. The regulation does not draw any such distinction. Therefore, in any view of the matter, there can be no difficulty in taking the view that the clarification/decision of the State Government as contained in the communication of the Director dated 4th October, 1974, became repugnant to the provisions as contained in Regulation 7 (2 ). The two cannot co-exist. The regulation does not draw any such distinction. Therefore, in any view of the matter, there can be no difficulty in taking the view that the clarification/decision of the State Government as contained in the communication of the Director dated 4th October, 1974, became repugnant to the provisions as contained in Regulation 7 (2 ). The two cannot co-exist. Consequently, it must be held that the offending portion of the clarification/decision, which affects the petitioner, because in effective upon the enforcement of Regulation 7 (2 ). " 13. Therefore, as far as the conditions of service of the petitioners are concerned who are teaching in Classes I to V of the said College can not be said to stand on a different footing than that of the teachers teaching from Classes VI to XII. Over and above the following reasons do also stand to add support to the contention of Mr. Khare, that Primary Section is an integral part of the said College and that the Regulations framed under 1921 Act are actually applicable in the case of the petitioners as well. 14. Mr. Khare in support of his contention has ralied on the decision in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Sukhdevi Uchchatar Madhyatnik Vidyalaya, Mandir Mahewa District Etawah v. Director of Education, U P. Lucknow, 1993 (2) UPLBEC 1288, and in the said case it was held : "in view of this definition, the Act applies not only to Intermediate College, Higher Secondary School or High School but also to a part of such college or School. After the definition of institution was amended Appendix a to the Act was also amended and minimum educational qualifications were prescribed for assistant teachers employed to teach primary classes (Classes I to V ). In view of these amendments it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Act does not apply to the Primary Section. In taking this view, we have the support of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Samantika Chatterjee v. Regional Inspectress of Girls School, 1990 (5) UPLBEC 239. In taking this view, we have the support of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Samantika Chatterjee v. Regional Inspectress of Girls School, 1990 (5) UPLBEC 239. In paragraph 12 of the Report at page 246, the Division Bench after, noticing the relevant provisions of the Act, has observed thus : in the context and setting of Regulation 7 (2) there can be no difficulty in taking the view that a teacher working in J T. C. /b. T. C. grade and assigned the task the primary classes attached to a recognised Intermediate College or Higher Secondary School or High School would be considered to be working in part of the institution. " 15. It was further held in the said case : "once it is held that Primary Section attached to a High School or Intermediate College is part of the High School or Intermediate College it necessarily follows that the protection provided by Section 16- G (3xa) of the Act would be available to a teacher attached to the Primary Section. " 16. Reference may be made to the U. P. Recognised Basic School (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Employees) Rule, 1973, The said rule came into force on 21th May, 1975. The security of tenure of Assistant Teacher employed in the recognised Junior Basic Schools imparting education upto Class V was sought to be secured by the said rule. Rule 11 thereof forbids dismissal, removal or termination of service of a teacher or other employee of the recognised School except with prior approval in writing or the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The said rule does not cover teachers employed in the Primary Section of a High School or Intermediate College. It appears that the Act was amended so as to avoid different treatment to the teachers employed to teach Primary Section in the High School or Intermediate College and thus employed in Basic School, 17. The said rule does not cover teachers employed in the Primary Section of a High School or Intermediate College. It appears that the Act was amended so as to avoid different treatment to the teachers employed to teach Primary Section in the High School or Intermediate College and thus employed in Basic School, 17. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Francis Jhon v. Director of Education, AIR 1990 SC 423 , had observed : "any private School which receives aid from the Government under the grant-in-aid Code, which is promulgated not merely for the benefit of the Management but also for the benefit of the employees in the School for whose salary and allowances the Government was contributing from the public funds under the grant-in-aid Code, cannot escape from the consequences flowing from the breach of the Code and particularly where the Director of Education who is an instrumentality of the State is partici pating in the decision making process. " 3. The definition of institution has been given in Section 2 (b) of 1921 Act which runs as follows : "2. Definition.-la this Act, and in all regulations made hereunder, unless there is repugnant in the subject or context,- (a) (b) institution means a recognised intermediate College, Higher Secondary School or High School, and includes, where, the context so requires, a part of an institution, and "head of Institution" means the Principal or Head Master, as the case may be, of such Institution. " 19. the said definition was substituted by Section 2 of the U. P. Secondary Education) (Amendment) Act, 1975 being Act No. 26 of 1975. The definition" of "institution" indicates that it means Secondary School, or High School including a part of an institution" where the context so requires. In the context of the present case, there being no other Management, the Primary Section is a part of the Institution which is also included in the definition of Institution. This is more so when originally recognition was granted to the Institution in respect of Class VI to Class XII which was brought under the grant-in-aid scheme, The grant of recognition by virtue of 6th September, 1989 order had brought the Primary Section into the purview of grant-in-aid scheme. This is more so when originally recognition was granted to the Institution in respect of Class VI to Class XII which was brought under the grant-in-aid scheme, The grant of recognition by virtue of 6th September, 1989 order had brought the Primary Section into the purview of grant-in-aid scheme. The Primary Sections of 393 Schools including the present one has- the effect of treating Primary Sections of the said College as part of the said Institution. 20. The whole of the Institution being one, it is inconceivable that the same would be governed by two different provisions in respect of two different parts, in effect the 1921 Act which governs the higher part of the Institution shall govern the entire part of it, as soon the Primary Section forms an integral part of the Institution, the reason being the School is being managed by one and the same Committee which is constituted under provisions of the 1921 Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. Here the Management is governed by the said Act which also manages the Primary Section. It can not be said that the affairs of the Primary Section shall be governed by some other Act. It is not the case of the respondents that Primary Section is being managed by a Managing Committee constitu ted under the provisions of the U. P. Basic Education Act. It is, therefore, impossible to accept the contention of Dr. Padia. 21. The Schools being governed by the 1921 Act, Regulations framed under the said Act are applicable to the said School. Regulation 10 Chapter VII prescribes : "10, No institution which is recognised by the Board as High School or Intermediate College shall be closed down without prior permission of the Board and unless a written notice by registered post is given to the Secretary of the Board with a copy to the Director at least one year prior to the proposed date of closure, setting forth the reasons for the closure of the institution. The Board may permit the closure of the institution subject to such con ditions and transfer of records of the institution to any other institution or authority as it may deem fit. " 22. Dr. The Board may permit the closure of the institution subject to such con ditions and transfer of records of the institution to any other institution or authority as it may deem fit. " 22. Dr. Padia submits relying on Explanation II Regulation 2 (4) of Chapter VII of the said Regulations framed under the 1921 Act that grant of recognition to an Institution is only for the purpose of Boards Examina tions therefore, such grant of recognition does not effect the authority with regard to the conditions of service and termination thereof. 14am unable to agree with the said proposition. Inasmuch as according to the Scheme and in the context as appears from an examination of 1921 Act and the Regula tions framed thereunder, the grant of recognition is not confined only to the question relating to holding of Examination. As soon recognition is granted to a School under Chapter VII for the purpose of Boards Examinations, it envisages application of all provisions of 1921 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, the reason being that recognition is granted to an Institution as defined in Section 2 (b) of the 1921 Act. A reference to Regulation 2, Chapter VII would make the position clear. Regulation 2, Chapter VII provides : "2. Subject to the sanction and control of the Board, the duties of the Recognition Committee shall be : (1) to prescribe norms and rules for grant of recognition to institution : Provided that these norms and rules shall be effective only after they have been approved by the State Government; (2) to consider applications for grant of recognition to institutions and to make recommendations in respect thereof ; (3) to consider in accordance with the rules framed by the Board, applications for grant of exemption from the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of Heads of Institutions and teachers and to make recommendations in respect there of; and (4) to consider such other matters as may be delegated to it by the Board. Explanation.--The expression grant of recognition means grant of recognition to institution for the purposes of Boards Examina tions for the first time or for grant of recognition subsequently in any additional group or subject of such examination. " 23. Explanation.--The expression grant of recognition means grant of recognition to institution for the purposes of Boards Examina tions for the first time or for grant of recognition subsequently in any additional group or subject of such examination. " 23. The Examination as envisaged in the Explanation is the ultimate goal for which a student gets his admission into a School and the Certificate granted on success in the Examination is the recognition of his study or of the course in the Institution. The said Certificates are regarded as Certificate of Education throughout the territories of India and even some countries outside for higher studies. The said Certificate opens an entrance to tae field of higher education to the students. Education is the basis of the development of man-kind. This education makes man-kind different from all other living being in the Universe. The Certificate of Examination in the formal expression of the education received by students. In order to achieve such goal, mechanism or machinery provided for must be of the standard which should command recognition. With that aims and objects in view, different Acts have been enacted for the purpose of creation of adequate infrastructure for imparting formal education for which the constitution and structure of the Committee of Management and administration of the Insti tution, curriculum and course for the students, qualifications and conditions of service for the teachers and other employees all have been provided. It is not that only examination h to be conducted and the other parts are to be ignored. The provision of law speaks contrary to the contentions raised by Dr. Padia. 24. My above view receives support from the Scheme of Chapter VII itself which provides in Regulations 3 and 4 of the said Chapter the methodo logy and the manner for application for recognition and the conditions on which such recognition can be granted and the manner of granting such recog nition. Regulation 3, so far as it is relevant for our purposes, is quoted here inafter : "3. (a) An application for grant of recognition to an institution shall be made in the prescribed form duly filled in and signed by the authority concerned and must reach the Secretary of the Board not later than August 31, of the year preceding that in which it is proposed to open classes. (a) An application for grant of recognition to an institution shall be made in the prescribed form duly filled in and signed by the authority concerned and must reach the Secretary of the Board not later than August 31, of the year preceding that in which it is proposed to open classes. Two copies of the applica tion should also be submitted direct by the institution concerned to the District Inspector of Schools in case of boys institutions and to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools in case of girls institution. (b ). . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . (e ). . . . . . . . No application of a Junior High School for recognition as High School hall be entertained until it is recognised permanently as a Junior High School and its Scheme of Administration for the proposed Kb ^school has been duly submitted to the Director Sr to the submission of the application for the grant of recog nition to the Secretary of the Board. 4 (8)6n "receipt of "two copies of application for recognition under clause (a) of Regulation 3 the Inspector or the Inspectress, as the case may be shall after such enquiry as he or she deems necessary make a report and recommendation regarding the fitness of the institution for the recognition on one of the applications and transmit same to the Secretary of the Board retaining the other copy of the application for his/her office record. Provided that before an application for recognition is Emitted before. the recognition Committee the Director or is nominee, who shall not be below the rank of a Deputy Director of Education may also where necessary, submit his report and recommendation in regard to the fitness of the institution for recognition. ". 2s The said Regulations 3 and 4 clearly provide that unless a Junior High School is recognized permanently and a Scheme of Administration for the proposed High School has been duly submitted, no application for grant of recognition shall be entertained and no Junior High School shall by recognized unless the scheme of Administration is not approved by the Director. Recognition is granted after necessary enquiry report and recommendation regarding the fitness of the Institution for recognition. 26. Recognition is granted after necessary enquiry report and recommendation regarding the fitness of the Institution for recognition. 26. The further contention of Dr. Padia that the said Regulation applies from Class IX to Class XII and, therefore, the provisions of 1921 Act and the Regulations are applicable only in respect of administration of that part cannot be sustained. Inasmuch as a Junior High School upto Class VIII as soon recognized to a High School, that part of the Junior High School becomes integral part of High School, Similarly as soon the High School is recognized as a Higher Secondary School, both that part of the institution which was Junior High School or High School forms part of the Higher Secondary School and in that analogy, on the part of the Institution which imparts primary education becomes an integral part of the same Insti tution. The Institution is recognised only when the Scheme of Administra tion is approved. As soon as recognition is granted, it is presumed that the Scheme of Administration has been approved and it becomes the Scheme of Administration of the whole of Institution and as soon such recognition is granted, recognition does not confine only to Class IX to Class XII as was sought to be contended by Dr. Padia. Such a situation shall be wholly anomalous and contrary to the Scheme of 1921 Act and the Regulation and will offend the definition of Institution as provided in the 1921 Act. In the circumstances, I am unable to agree with the contention of Dr. Padia. 27. Now the question arises as to whether the Primary Section of the School can be closed down. The contention of Mr. Khare that the closing down of Primary Section is not permissible in view of Regulation 10 of Chapter VII. The said submission has been assailed by Dr. Padia on the ground that the Primary Section was not part of the Institution and is gover ned by the U. P. Basic Education Act due to which Regulation 10, Chapter VII aforesaid can not be attracted. Once it is accepted that the Primary Section is an integral part of one and the same Institution and the same has been recognised under Chapter VII, Regulation 10 is also attracted. Regulation 10 begin with the phrase no Institution which is recognised. Once it is accepted that the Primary Section is an integral part of one and the same Institution and the same has been recognised under Chapter VII, Regulation 10 is also attracted. Regulation 10 begin with the phrase no Institution which is recognised. The institution as used in the present phrase is an Institution as defined in Section 2 (b) of the 1921 Act. which prescribes a part of an institution where context so requires. In my view, the expression institution used in Regulation 10 Chapter VII can not have any different meaning that has been given in Section 2 (b) of the 1921 Act. In framing Regulation 10 or Chapter VII, no different intention has been expressed as to give a different meaning to the expression institution but only to main, as contended by Mr. Khare, that the whole of the Institution and not part thereof. It also can not be implied upon exami nation and study of the entire scheme of the 1921 Act and the Regulation that the Legislature had a different intention while using the expression institution to mean that Regulation 10 would be applicable only when the whole of the Institution is sought to be closed. The definition of institution having been amended to include a part of the Institution, where context go requires clearly leads us to an irresistible conclusion that the expression institution used in Regulation 10, Chapter VII in the context includes part of the Insti tution. Therefore, even when a part of the Institution is sought to be closed down, the provisions of Regulation 10, Chapter VII are attracted. Under Regulation 10 an Institution including the part of the Institution, being the Primary Section could also be closed down with prior permission of the Board upon a notice given under Registered Post to the Secretary of the Board with a copy to the Director before one year prior to the proposed date of closure, setting forth the reasons therefore. It is the discretion of the Board to permit the closure as is envisaged by the use of the phrase may permit the closure and such closure is also subject to such conditions and transfer of records of the Institution to any other Institution or authority as it may deem fit. It is the discretion of the Board to permit the closure as is envisaged by the use of the phrase may permit the closure and such closure is also subject to such conditions and transfer of records of the Institution to any other Institution or authority as it may deem fit. The addition of the phrase implies that the Management of an Institution even if closes down a part of the Institution or whole of the Institution, the same would be subject to the conditions as the Board may in its discretion decide to transfer the record of the Institution to any other Institution or autho rity which implies that the Institution or its part thereof may not cease to function altogether. 28. In the present case, Dr. Padia has not contended that any such proposal was given in compliance of Regulation 10, Chapter VII aforesaid or that any permission was so given. On the other hand, Dr. Padia contends that it was not a closure of the Institution. It was only termination of services of the petitioner. But admittedly the services of all the Teachers of the Primary Section having been terminated, the Primary Section can not run without any teacher. It is also contended in the writ petition that the students are not also being permitted to enter the Institution. Therefore, Dr. Padia has not suggested that there are any other teacher teaching in the Primary Section or that the students are being permitted to enter the School or that the Classes are being taking even while making his submission orally. There fore, though the respondents 3 and 4 have not specifically stated that they are closing down the Institution in so many express words, but the action taken by them by dispensing with the services of all the teachers of the Primary Section at a time simultaneously prohibiting entry of the students in the School has the effect of closing down the School. While Regulation 10 prohibits closing down except in the manner provided therein, the Manage ment can not be permitted to take liberty of Regulation 10 in an indirect manner and frustrate the provision of Regulation 10 and thereby jeopardise not only the services of the confirmed teachers but also the education of a number of children who has been put to an enormous uncertainty in the beginning of their career only because of the caprice and the whims of the management of the said College. Such an action is against all norms of the Society and affects the welfare not only of the teachers but also of the children whose interest has been sought to be secured by enactment of various provi sions of law for the purposes of keeping the Management within the bounds of certain procedure so as not to allow them liberty for acting as a despot creating an eparchial situation in the realm of the educational atmosphere. The Management can not be permitted to play with the future of the stu dents whose interest is principal and prime. Admittedly the action of the respondents being contrary to Regulation 10 though the same was attempted to be dressed in the guise of termination of some teachers simpliciter has the effect of closing down the Institution contrary to the provisions of Regulation 10. Therefore, such an action being contrary to Regulation 10 can not be sustained. 29 Now turning to Regulations 35, 36 and 37 of Chapter HI, it appears that those are provisions as to how an enquiry is to be conducted against the teachers and how the enquiry report is to be dealt with. Dr. Padia has not suggested that these Regulations were resorted to in the course of his submission. It is not the case of the respondents that Regulations 35, 36 and 37 of Chapter 111 were complied with before the services of the petitioner were terminated. Dr. Padia has not suggested that these Regulations were resorted to in the course of his submission. It is not the case of the respondents that Regulations 35, 36 and 37 of Chapter 111 were complied with before the services of the petitioner were terminated. On the other hand, Section 16-G of the 1921 Act which deals with the condition of service of the teachers provides : 16-G. Conditions of service of Heads of Institutions, teachers and other employees.- (1) livery person employed in a recognised institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by Regulations and any agreement between the management and such employee in so far as it is in consistent with the provisions of this Act or with the Regulations shall be void (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), Regulations may provided for- (a) the period of probation, the conditions, confirmation and the procedure and conditions for promotion and punishment including suspension pending or in contemplation of inquiry or during the pendency of investigation, inquiry or trial in any criminal case for an offence involving moral turpitude and the emoluments for the period of suspension and termina tion of service with notice ; (b) the scale of payment of salaries ; (c) transfer of service from one recognized institution to another ; (d) grant of leave and Provident Fund and other benefits and ; (e) maintenance of record of work and service. (3) (a) No Principal, Headmaster or teacher may be discharged or removed or Dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emolutions, or served with notice of termina tion of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. The decision of the Inspector shall be communicated within the period to be prescribed by regulations. (b) The Inspector may approve or disapprove or reduce or enhance the punishment or approve or disapprove of the notice for termination of service proposed by the management: "provided that in the cases of punishment, before passing orders. Inspector shall give an opportunity to the principle, the Head master or the teacher to show cause within a fortnight of the receipt of the notice why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted. " 30. Regulations 31 framed under the 1921 Act provides : "31. Inspector shall give an opportunity to the principle, the Head master or the teacher to show cause within a fortnight of the receipt of the notice why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted. " 30. Regulations 31 framed under the 1921 Act provides : "31. Punishment of an employee that would require the prior approval of the Inspector or Regional Inspectress, may take any of the following forms : (a) Dismissal. (b) Removal or discharge. (c) Reduction in rank. (d) Diminution in emoluments. " 31. Similar provisions also appear in Regulation 38 which runs as follows : "38. If it is felt at any stage that the matter can more properly be dealt with by action to terminate service with notice, this may be done with the approval of the Inspector or Regional Inspectors, as the case may be. " 32. We find a similar provision in Section 21 of the 1982 Act which provides : "21. Restriction on dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of teacher.- (I) No teacher specified in the Schedule shall be dis missed of removed from service or receded in rank and neither his emoluments may be reduced nor he may be given notice of removal from service by the management unless prior approval of the Commission has been obtained ; Provided that, where reference for prior approval of the Inspector was made in accordance with sub- section (3) of Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, before January 1,1984, no prior approval of the Commission shall be necessary and such reference shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of that Act as if this Act had not come into force. " (2) No teacher other than a teacher specified in the Schedule shall be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank and neither his emoluments may be reduced nor he may be given notice of removal from service by the management unless prior approval of the Board has been obtained : Provided that where reference for prior approval of the Inspector was made in accordance with sub- section (3) of Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 before the commencement of this sub-section, no prior approval of the Board shall be necessary and such reference shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of that Act as if this Act had not come into force. (3) Every order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or removal from service or reduction in emoluments of a teacher in contra vention or the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be void. 33. A combined reading of the said provision indicates that by reason of Section 16-O of the 1921 Act, the services of a teacher cannot be terminated either by way of punishment or otherwise except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. Section 16-O (1) prescribes that every person employed in a recognised Institution shall be governed by conditions of service prescribed by Regulations and any agreement between the Management and employee inconsistent with the Act and the Regulations shall be void. Section i6-Q (2) provides for the subjects on which Regulations had to be framed which includes in Clause (a) termination of service with notice, as in the present case while Section 16-G (3) (a) provides that no teacher can be served with a notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector who is empowered under Clause (b) to approve or disapprove the notice of termination of service. In the case of termination by way of punishment, prior approval is mandatory as has been provided in Section 16-G (3) read with Regulations 31 and 38. In respect of termination simplicitor, the only Regulations available are Regulation 26, 27, 28 and 29. While Regulation 26 prescribes the ground when termination simpliciter can be effected. Regulations 27, 28 and 29 provide the mode and manner in which such notices are to be issued. Regulation 26 lays down : "26. (1) The services of a permanent employee may be terminated by giving him three months pay in lieu thereof, on the ground of the abolition of the post which the employee was holding. The aboli tion may be due to one of the following reasons : (a) Retrenchment decided upon for reasons of financial stringency. (b) Abolition of a subject. (c) Abolition of section or class. (2) For the purpose of computing the period of notice mentioned in clause (1) or for determining the amount to be paid in lieu thereof the period of summer vacation shall be excluded. " 34. (b) Abolition of a subject. (c) Abolition of section or class. (2) For the purpose of computing the period of notice mentioned in clause (1) or for determining the amount to be paid in lieu thereof the period of summer vacation shall be excluded. " 34. It is clear from the said Regulation that such termination can be made only on the ground of abolition of the post for the reasons mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (e) thereof, but such action is subject to Section 16-G (3) of the 1921 Act. Again Clause (c) of Regulation 26 (1) of Chapter HI would be subject to Regulation 10 of Chapter VII. Whereas Sec. 21 (2) of the 1982 Act prohibits termination of service without the approval of the Board while pro viding that in case approval has been obtained under Section 16-G (3) of 1921 Act, no prior approval of the Board need be obtained before the commence ment of Section 21 (2) of 1982 Act. Sub-sections (1) and (5) came into force on 1st January, 1984 and the termination having been sought to be effected long thereafter, It was necessary to obtain approval from the Board. Sec tion 21 (3) prescribes that every order of dismissal or removal of teachers in contravention of Section 21 (1) shall be void. Though, however, 1982 Act was enacted with the object of supplementing Section 16-G (3), it was found to be inadequate in cases where the Management proposed to impose punish ment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank and, therefore, the power was conceived to be exercised by the Management with the prior approval of the Commission or Selection Board, as the case may be, which would function as an independent and impartial body. 35. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the respondents that they have complied with Sec. 16-G (3) of the 1921 Act, Regulations 26, 31 and 38 of the said Regulations or Sec. 21 (2) of the 1982 Act. In the facts and circum stances of the case, the termination herein appears to be a notice of termina tion of service as contemplated in Section 16-G (3 ). The notice having been issued without the prior approval of the D1os, the same cannot be sustained and, as such, is liable to be quashed. In the facts and circum stances of the case, the termination herein appears to be a notice of termina tion of service as contemplated in Section 16-G (3 ). The notice having been issued without the prior approval of the D1os, the same cannot be sustained and, as such, is liable to be quashed. On these two accounts, the notices contained in Annexure 4 are hereby quashed. Accordingly let a certiorari do issue. 36. The result of quashing of notice contained in Annexure 4 would revive the situation prior to issue of such notices and accordingly the School shall continue to run and the services of the petitioner shall continue together with all service benefits including arrears and future pay. Therefore, issue of consequent order or direction becomes necessary. As such, the respondents are directed to carry on the teaching work of Primary Section of Navli Inter College, Navli, District Ghazipur and permit the petitioner to carry on teach ing work therein and to make regular monthly payment of salary month by month and to pay the arrears as early as possible and also to permit the teachers and the students to attend classes in the institution regularly. The writ petition is thus allowed. Petition allowed. .