JUDGMENT : R.K. Agrawal, J. The present special has been directed against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33209 of 2001, whereby the writ petition has been partly allowed. The learned Judge has issued the following directions : "The District Inspector of Schools is directed to reconsider the entire matter taking into account as to whether respondent No. 2 is a Teacher or a non-teaching staff and in either case her services cannot be terminated except with the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools since the institution is a recognised institution. The District Inspector of Schools is further directed to look into the case of bias and prejudice set up by the respondent No. 2 against the order of termination dated 19.9.2001. So, far as the order dated 19.9.2001 is concerned, it is liable to be set-aside on the ground that it straightway terminated the services of the respondent No. 2 without affording any opportunity and without giving her the notice or pay to the leave of the notice is void. The District Inspector of Schools is, therefore, directed to look into all these aspects and such other and further aspects as may now be raised by the parties. The order of the District Inspector dated 4/5.10.2001 is quashed and the District Inspector of Schools is directed to look into the matter again in the light of the observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before the District Inspector of Schools within one month from today and it will be open to the parties to file such fresh representations as they may so choose and the District Inspector of "Schools shall afford opportunity to both the parties and pass a reasoned order within a period of three months fixing the date by the District Inspector of Schools immediately after receipt of the representation." 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Special Appeal are that the Committee of Management runs Dr. Sudama Prasad Bal Vidya Mandir, Kanya Inter College, Khirni Bagh, Sharahanpur, (hereinafter referred to as the College) which is recognised under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is an unaided College. The respondent was appointed as an Administrative Officer in the College some times in the month of November, 1997. Sudama Prasad Bal Vidya Mandir, Kanya Inter College, Khirni Bagh, Sharahanpur, (hereinafter referred to as the College) which is recognised under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is an unaided College. The respondent was appointed as an Administrative Officer in the College some times in the month of November, 1997. The post of Administrative Officer was abolished by the Committee of Management of the College vide resolution dated 6.9.2001. Vide letter dated 19.11.2001 the Committee of Management of the said College terminated the engagement of the respondent No.2. It appears that the respondent No. 2 made a representation on 20.9.2001 before the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools treated the said representation as an appeal and after calling for the comments, came to the conclusion that even though the respondent No. 2 was designated as an Administrative Officer but was teaching the classes of English. Thus, she was mainly, appointed as a teacher though designation was given as an Administrative Officer and all the provisions relating to Teachers would be applicable. He further held that the Committee of Management had neither given any in 'OR nor had called for any explanation from the respondent No. 2, therefore, the entire procedure adopted for terminating the services of the respondent No. 2 was illegal and contrary to law and cannot be sustained. The order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the District Inspector of Schools was challenged by the Committee of Management before this Court by means of writ petition which has been partly allowed by the learned Judge vide order dated 26.11.2001 which is under challenge in this Special Appeal. 3. We have heard Shri R.N. Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R.C. Singh learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Subodh Kumar learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Sri Ran Vijay Singh learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 4. Shri R.N. Singh, submits that the respondent No. 2 was appointed as an Administrative Officer in the College and not as a Teacher and as the post of Administrative Officer in the College had been abolished by the Committee of Management vide resolution dated 6.9.2001 in services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated on 19.9.2001. 4. Shri R.N. Singh, submits that the respondent No. 2 was appointed as an Administrative Officer in the College and not as a Teacher and as the post of Administrative Officer in the College had been abolished by the Committee of Management vide resolution dated 6.9.2001 in services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated on 19.9.2001. Since the College is unaided and the post of Administrative Officer was not a sanctioned post, the District Inspector of Schools did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the representation made by the respondent No. 2. He further submitted that the learned Judge, committed manifest error of law in directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter afresh. 5. According to him, the respondent No. 2 had filed a suit for injunction restraining the Committee of Management of the College, the Manager and the Principal from interfering in the peaceful working as Administrative-Officer-cum-Teacher in the College. She had also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction a copy of which has filed as Annexure 7 to the affidavit filed in support of Civil Misc. Application No. 118584 of 2001. The respondent No. 2 had mentioned the resolution dated 6.9.2001 passed by the Committee of Management of the College by which the post of Administrative Officer held by her had been abolished. Thus, he submitted that the fact the respondent No. 2 was appointed on the post of Administrative Officer and that post had been abolished has been admitted to her. He further submitted that the respondent No. 2 was not appointed as a Teacher in the College as provided under Section 7AA of the Act and the Rules/Government Orders framed by the Government there under. Thus, according to him, there was no necessity for directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter again. 6. Shri Subodh Kumar, however, submits that the Manager Brij Mohan Lal Gupta, who had filed the present appeal as Manager of the Committee of Management of the College had since been removed and the Committee of Management had not passed any resolution for filing appeal or any proceedings hence the present appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. He further submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable as it has been preferred against the order of learned Judge arising out of an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools in an appeal filed by the respondent No. 2. He further submitted that the Committee of Management had passed the resolution to follow the decision given by the learned Single Judge and in this view of the matter the appeal should be dismissed. On merits he submits that the respondent No. 2 was appointed as Teacher but was given designation of Administrative Officer. She used to take classes and the termination order has been passed mala fide. According to him, the learned Single Judge had rightly directed the District Inspector of Schools to look into the matter as to whether the respondent No. 2 was appointed as Teacher or not. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that admittedly the College in question is an unaided recognised College under the provisions of the Act. Section 7AA of the Act, empowers the Committee of Management of an Institution to employ from its own resources as an interim measure part time Teachers for imparting instructions in any subject or group of subjects or for a higher class for which recognition is given or in any section of an existing class for which permission is granted under Section 7A. It also empowers the Management of the Institution to employ part time instructors to impart instructions in moral education or any trade or craft under socially useful productive work or vocational course. Section 7AA of the Act, reads as follows : "7AA. Employment of part time Teachers or part-time Instructors. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the management of an institution may, from its own resources, employ (1) as an interim measure part-time teachers for imparting instructions in any subject or group of subjects or for a higher class for which recognition is given or in any section of an existing class for which permission is granted under Section 7A; (ii) part-time instructors to impart instructions in moral education or any trade or craft under socially useful productive work or vocational course. (2) No recognition shall be given and no permission shall be granted under Section 7A, unless the Committee of Management furnishes such security in cash or by way of Bank guarantee to the Inspector as may be specified by the State Government from time to time. (3) No part time teacher shall be employed in any institution unless such conditions may be specified by the State Government by order in this behalf are complied with. (4) No part-time teacher or part-time instructor shall be employed unless he possesses such minimum qualifications as may be prescribed. (5) A part-time teacher or a part-time instructor shall be paid such honorarium as may be fixed by the State Government by general or special order in this behalf. (6) Nothing in this Act, shall preclude a person already serving as a teacher in an institution from being employed as a part-time teacher or a part-time instructor under Section 7 Assisting Authority." 8. From a reading of the aforesaid section, it is clear that a parttime teacher cannot be employed in a College by the Management from its own resources unless the conditions specified by the Government by order as provided in subsection (3) of Section 7AA are complied with and further he possesses such minimum qualification as may be prescribed. The State Government had provided for advertisement of vacancies and also minimum qualification for appointment on the post of a part time teacher. It is not dispute that the respondent No. 2 was appointed without complying with the conditions of advertisement of vacancy. Thus, even if it is provided that the respondent No. 2 was appointed on the post of part time teacher, her appointment was not under Section 7AA of the Act. Moreover, the herself had being claiming to have been appointed as Administrator-cum-Teacher as would be clear from the averment made by her in the plaint filed by her in the trial Court. The respondent No. 2 has not placed any material on record to show that she had been appointed as Teacher or her appointment has been made after complying with the conditions laid down by the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 7AA of the Act. The respondent No. 2 has not placed any material on record to show that she had been appointed as Teacher or her appointment has been made after complying with the conditions laid down by the State Government under subsection (3) of Section 7AA of the Act. Even otherwise on her own showing as per the averments made in the plaint filed by her in the trial Court, she had claimed to have been appointed on the post of Administrative Officer-cum-Teacher which post had been abolished by the Committee of Management vide resolution passed on 6.9.2001. The Administrative Officer was not a sanctioned post whereas for filling up the post of a part time Teacher, the conditions mentioned in Section 7AA of the Act are to be complied with. We have already held that in the present case, the conditions for appointment of a part time teacher as provided under Section 7AA has not been followed. 9. In view of foregoing discussions we are of the considered opinion that the claim put forward by the respondent that she had been appointed, as Teacher has no legs to stand. 10. As regards the preliminary objection raised by Shri Subodh Kumar that the appeal is not maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, is concerned, we find that in the present case, the statute had not provided any appeal against the order of the Committee of Management. The right of appeal was conferred by the State Government under Order issued in exercise of powers under Section 7AA of the Act. 11. Section 7AA(3) of the Act, only provided for specifying conditions which had to be complied with before making appointment of a part time teacher or part time instructor by the Management of an Institution from its own resources. It did not give any power to the State Government to provide for any appeal. Thus, the appeal provided by the Government in the order issued under Section 7AA of the Act cannot be termed as statutory appeal so as to disentitle the aggrieved party from filing a Special Appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. Thus, the preliminary objection regarding non-maintainability of special appeal is overruled. 12. So far as the question that Dr. Thus, the preliminary objection regarding non-maintainability of special appeal is overruled. 12. So far as the question that Dr. Brij Mohan Lal Gupta has been removed from the post of Manager of the Committee of Management of the College is concerned, we find that Dr. Brij Mohan Lal Gupta has challenged his removal as Manager of the Committee of Management by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47852 of 2002, before this Court which was allowed by the learned Judge vide judgment and order dated 11.11.2002. The matter was remanded to the Joint Director of Education for deciding a fresh. The judgment and order dated 11.11.2002, passed by the learned Judge was challenged by Ganga Singh Chauhan in Special Appeal No. 75 bf 2003, in which a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 30.1.2003 while finally disposing of the appeal, directed the status quo as on 31.1.2003 regarding the office of Manager in question shall be maintained. 13. Shri Subodh Kumar has not brought any material on record to show that on 31.1.2003 Dr. Brij Mohan Lal Gupta was not working as Manager pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2003 passed by the learned Judge where the order of removing him from the said post was quashed. Thus, it cannot be held that Dr. Brij Mohan Lal Gupta was not working on that date so as to disentitle from filing the present Special Appeal or pursuing the same any further. 14. So far as the question that the Committee of Management had passed resolution on 9.12.2001, the respondent No. 2 was permitted to continue till such time the District Inspector of Schools takes a decision is concerned, suffice it to mention that the present special appeal was filed before this Court on 18.12.2001 and no body moved any application for withdrawal of the Special Appeal before this Court. Thus, in the absence of any application or proceedings on behalf of the Committee of Management for withdrawal of the appeal, on account of some internal resolution passed by the Committee of Management, the Court is left with no other option but to proceed to hear and decide the appeal. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge was not justified in directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter again. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge was not justified in directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter again. In fact the respondent No. 2 was not appointed as Teacher in the College and therefore, he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. In the result the special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 26.11.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 4/5.10.2001 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Shahjahanpur are hereby set-aside. 16. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.