( 1 ) BY means of this petition , petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27. 11. 1998, whereby the respondent no. 1, the basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etawah/auraiya, dis-approved the resolution passed by the petitioner -Committee of Management of junior High School, Rosangpur, Auraiya, to terminate the services of respondent no. 2 Shri Brijesh Kumar Dwivedi as Assistant Teacher in the said school. ( 2 ) IT appears that Sshri Brijesh Kumar Dwivedi, the respondent no. 2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid Junior High school on 14. 8. 1992. His appointment was also approved by the basic Shiksha Adhikari. Subsequently Shri Ram Naresh Pandey and jagdish Narain Shukla, who were also candidates for appointment on the aforesaid post, made complaints against respondent no. 2 on the basis of which after making preliminary inquiry, the respondent no. 2 was placed under suspension vide order dated 25. 6. 1997 by the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 revoked the order of suspension vide his order dated 8. 9. 1997, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32259 of 1997 was filed in this Court by the petitioner which was finally disposed of by judgement and order dated 26. 9. 1997. It was directed by this Court that the petitioner shall conclude the inquiry within 2 months and in case the inquiry is not concluded within the said time, it would be open to respondent no. 2 to submit representation before the petitioner to revoke the order of suspension, Even if the suspension order is revoked, it will be open to the petitioner to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, chargesheet was framed and suplied to the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted on the basis of which the petitioner-Committee of Management on 23. 01. 1998 resolved to terminate the services of respondent no. 2 A copy of the resolution alongwith the record of the case were thereafter submitted to the respondent no. 1 for his approval. The respondent no. 1 on receipt of the papers regarding termination of the services of respondent no. 2formulated as many as 4 questions for determination in the case which were answered in a negative and in favour of respondent no. 2 by him and the respondent no. l thereafter disapproved the resolution passed by the petitioner on 23. 1. 1998. The respondent no. 1 on receipt of the papers regarding termination of the services of respondent no. 2formulated as many as 4 questions for determination in the case which were answered in a negative and in favour of respondent no. 2 by him and the respondent no. l thereafter disapproved the resolution passed by the petitioner on 23. 1. 1998. The respondent no. l has also revoked the suspension of respondent no. 2 and directed for his re-instatement and payment of salary with effect from the date he was placed under suspension. The petitioner was directed to submit the salary bills for the period the respondent no. 2 remained under suspension by his order dated 27. 11. 98 which is under challenge in this petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the order passed by respondent no. l dated 27. 11. 1998 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. He has referred to and relied upon the provisions of Rule 10 of U. P. Recognized Basic Schools Rule, 1978. It was urged that the respondent no. 1 could at the best, if he was not satisfied dis-agreed with the resolution passed and the recommendation made by the Committee of Management with the direction that the matter shall be re-considered by the Selection committee. He had no authority to reject the recommendation out-rightly. ( 4 ) AFTER perusing the provisions of Rule 10 of the aforesaid rules mr. Y. K. Saxena, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent no. 2 as well as learned standing counsel have fairly conceded that the order passed by the respondent no. l is not in consonence with the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of the said rules. The same is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the respondent no. 1 had no jurisdiction to out-right reject the recommendation made by the committee of Management. He could at the best return the papers to the Committee of Management with the aforesaid direction. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is not necessary in the present case to ask the respondents to file counter-affidavit. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules provides as under :- "10. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is not necessary in the present case to ask the respondents to file counter-affidavit. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules provides as under :- "10. (5) (I) If the District Basic Education Officer is satisfied that a) the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post; b) the procedure laid down in these rules for the selection of Headmaster or assistant teacher as the case may be, has been followed, he shall accord approval to the recommendations made by the Selection committee and shall communicate his decision to the management within two weeks from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4 ). (ii) If the District basic Education officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the management with the direction that the matter shall be reconsidered by the selection committee. (iii) If the District basic Education officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4) shall be deemed to have accorded selection committee. " Under sub-clause (ii) of Clause- (b) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of U. P. Recognized Basic Schools Rules 1978, the District Basic education officer if he was not satisfied by the cecommendation made by the Selection Committee, could at the best to return the papers to the Management with the directio9n that the matter should be reconsidered by the Selection Committee. He had no authority to reject the recommendation. Thus, the respondent no. l exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order dated 27. 11. 1998 and rejecting the recommendation. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 as well as learned Standing counsel have conceded that the aforesaid impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as stated above. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27. 11. 1998 is liable to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts, the present petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 27. 11. 1998 is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 1 is directed to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Rules and in the light of the observations made above. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts, the present petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 27. 11. 1998 is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 1 is directed to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Rules and in the light of the observations made above. Petition Allowed. .