RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a primary school teacher in village Shahpur Tigri. district Moradabad. The school is run by the Zila Parishad and is governed by the U. P. Basic Education Act. 1972 and the Rules of 1973. ( 2 ) THE fact that the petitioner had been selected as an Assistant Teacher in a primary school, commonly known in the village as a primary school teacher, is not an issue and is acknowledged by the respondents in an affidavit filed by the Additional Inspector of Schools. Moradabad. The respondents also accept that the petitioner was validly selected and given an assignment as an assistant Teacher at the Primary School. ( 3 ) AFTER the petitioner had worked for some time, he received a termination order from the Basic shiksha Adhikari dated 24 August. 1994. By this termination order, the petitioner has plainly and simply been told that his services are no longer required, as the nature of his service was temporary. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order. The appellate authority, the secretary. Basic Shiksha Parishad, U. P. , in effect, upheld the order of termination. This is the order of 23rd December, 1992, ( 4 ) THE petitioner, by this writ petition challenges both the orders of termination and of the appellate authority. As the petitioner had an occasion to object to the order of termination, his contention has also been recorded by the appellate authority. ( 5 ) BASICALLY two reasons are on record why the petitioner lost his job, The first is that he has two wives living with him. The second reason is that a complaint had been made by a Minister that the petitioner is affiliated to a political party and is an active worker of it and he ought to be dismissed. If the first reason was not cause for termination of the petitioners services, and only on the second one the petitioners services had been terminated, the Court would have reinstated him and sent the petitioner back on his job as the petitioner would have been entitled to receive a memoranda of allegations even if it was on a Ministers complaint so that he could confront the allegation against him. But, unfortunately, this is not the solitary reason. But, unfortunately, this is not the solitary reason. ( 6 ) ON the other aspect why the petitioner has seen his services come to an and is because he has had the luxury of having two wives. The petitioner contends that this latitude can be explained under the departmental regulations and that if the regulations are seen in the proper perspective, he can have the indulgence of having two wives. ( 7 ) INDULGENCE and latitude it indeed is but it will not be discreet for the High Court to lend an interpretation to encourage bigamy and yet keep a Government job, merely because a government employee can explain away the situation or the compelling circumstances which obliged him to take two wives. The petitioner explains that as his first wife did not give him a child, after twelve years he took another wife. If a woman were to do the same thing what the petitioner has done, she would be ostracized by society. Male chauvinism cannot be permitted by law nor courts to travel beyond decency, ethics and morality, to make a laughing stock of the sacrament that is marriage. The petitioner is a promiscuous and an adventurous husband. There is no place for such amorous teachers in a teaching job. The petitioner has rightly lost his service as a primary school teacher. ( 8 ) THERE is no occasion for the High Court to interfere in this matter. ( 9 ) THE writ petition is dismissed with costs. .