R. K. SINGH, J. Petitioner Sri Digamber Jain Kanya Shiksha Commit tee, etah has prayed for a writ of cetiorari, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10th July, 1989 passed by respondent No. 1 (An-nexure-9) and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 not to give effect to the said order dated 10th of July, 1989. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Sharma appear ing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Pradeep Kumar Saxena on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Sri Vinay Malviya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah. 3. Respondent No. 2 Gaya Prasad was a Chaukidar in the Institution known as Sri Digamber Jain Kanya Madhyamik (Junior) Vidyalaya, Etah. On several al legations departmental proceeding was in itiated against Gaya Prasad and a charge-sheet was served on him vide Annexure-V. Gaya Prasad submitted his show-cause (Annexure VI ). After due enquiry the Managing Committee of Sri Digamber Jain Kanya Madhyamik (Junior) Vidyalaya Etah in its decision through the resolution dated 5th May, 1989 (Annexure- VII) decided to remove Gaya Prasad from the services of the Vidyalaya. The removal order dated 10th May, 1989 was served on Gaya Prasad (Annexure-VIII ). A copy of the order was sent to District Baste Shiksha Adhikari, Etah for information and necessary action. 4. The District Basic Shiksha Ad hikari, Etah quashed the order of the Managing Committee (Annexure- VIII) by his letter/order, dated 10th of July, 1989 (Annexure-IX ). 5. The petitioner claims that the In stitution is a minority institution in terms of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners the In stitution has been recognised as a minority institution by the respondent No. 1, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah (Annexure-III) and a certificate to that effect was granted to the Institution on April 24, 1986 by the Additional District Magistrate, Etah (Annexure-IV ). The petitioners have stated that Rule 21 of the U. P. Recognised Basic (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Condition of Services and other Conditions of Clerks Employees and Group gh Employees) Rules, 1984 does not apply to them and so the order of the respondent No. 1 con tained in Annexure-IV is illegal and without jurisdiction. So it should be quashed. 6. So it should be quashed. 6. Undisputedly Digamber Jains are a minority sect in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Institution Sri Digamber Jain Kanya Madhyamik (Junior) Vidyalaya, Etah has been established by the people of Digam ber Jain Sect as per bye-laws of the Society (Annexure-I ). The respondent No. 1 Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah in his letter dated 17th April, 1986 (Annexure-III) has recognised the Vidyalaya as established and managed by the people of Jain sect and a minority institution as per Article 30 (1) of the Constitution and on the recommen dation of the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah contained in his letter dated 17th of April, 1986 (Annexure-III), the Addition al District Magistrate, Etah issued certifi cate dated 24th April, 1986 to the effect that his school is recognised under rule 15 (Ga) to be a minority Institution with in the meaning of Article 30 (1) of the Con stitution of India. 7. Mr. Saxena and Mr. Malviya both have straneously argued to convince the Court that Annexure-III and Annexure-IV have not been issued by the competent authority, they are not competent to issue a certificate recognising this Institution as a minority Institution. Inspite of repeated query they could not state if there is any other competent authority for the purpose. There is no basis to challenge the authority of the respondent No. 1 who is the superintending authority having full control over the Basic Madhyamik (Junior) Vidyalaya of the district. The order Annexure-IV has been issued on the recommendation of the respondent No. 1. Thus we reject the argument of Mr. Saxena and Mr. Malviya. 8. Rule 21 of the U. P. Recognised Basic (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Condition of Service and other Condi tions of Clerks Employees and Group gh Employees) Rules, 1984 is being reproduced below: 9. The rule is very clear on this point. There is full force in the petitioners contentions that the impugned order Annexure-IX is against rule 21 (above reproduced) because the petitioner is not required to obtain prior approval of the respondent No. 1 for removal of the respondent No. 2 Gaya Prasad from the Vidyalaya simply information of removal order is required to be given to respondent No. 1 which has already been given. 10. 10. We are satisfied that the order (Annexure-IX) is bad in the eyes of the specific mandate under Rule 21 of the U. P. Recognised Basic (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Condition of Service and other Conditions of Clerk Employees and Group gh (Employees) Rules, 1984 and so it is fit to be quashed. 11. Accordingly the writ petition suc ceeds. Order Annexure-IX is here by quashed and the respondent No. 1 is here by directed not to give any effect to the said order (Annexure-IX to the writ peti tion ). Petition allowed. .