JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.12.2002 Annexure-11 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 1 and order dated 1.1.2003, Annexure-18 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 2. Further prayer is for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to work on the post of Assistant Teacher and to pay salary. 2. The question involved in the present writ petition is limited to the extent that whether after upgradation of the institution as High School the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has got any power to approve or disapprove the order of termination of a teacher? 3. There is an institution known as Indira Gandhi Junior High School, Nagla Ahwasi, Aligarh. The aforesaid institution was Junior High School and the same was raised to the level of High School in the year 2001. The said institution received grant-in-aid only up to the Junior High Schools Level. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid institution-vide its appointment order dated 7.11.1989. The appointment of the petitioner was also approved by the District Basic Education Officer-vide its order-dated 10.11.1989. A copy of the order of appointment and order of approval has been filed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. At the time of appointment the minimum qualification required for the post of Assistant Teacher was Intermediate with training certificate. The petitioner passed his BA examination with 3rd division marks. The petitioner submitted the mark-sheet passing the examination before the Committee of Management. After completion of the probation period, the petitioner was confirmed as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 11.11.1990. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Since the date of appointment the petitioner performed his duty diligently and there was no complaint whatsoever. An inquiry was initiated against one Ganga Sahai Sharma, Head Master of the institution by the S.D.M., Aligarh for misappropriating an amount to the tune of Rs. 45,000/- which was received by him towards the scholarship of Harijan Students. The Head Master of the institution wanted support from the petitioner in the aforesaid matter but the petitioner however, refused to oblige the Head Master and due to the aforesaid fact the petitioner was being harassed in collusion with the Manager of the institution. 4. 45,000/- which was received by him towards the scholarship of Harijan Students. The Head Master of the institution wanted support from the petitioner in the aforesaid matter but the petitioner however, refused to oblige the Head Master and due to the aforesaid fact the petitioner was being harassed in collusion with the Manager of the institution. 4. A show cause notice was issued against the petitioner in respect of the deposit of the amount having been collected from the students. The petitioner submitted his reply informing the Head Master of the institution that the entire amount collected as fee by the petitioner was handed over to the concerned clerk. If the said amount has not been deposited in the bank, it is not the responsibility of the petitioner. However, the concerned clerk later on deposited the entire amount in the bank account of the institution on 10.10.2001. One Sri Krishna Prasad Sharma a life member of the General body of the society which runs the institution moved an application under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. against the Head Master, Manager and some other persons connected with the management of the institution. In the said application the petitioner was described as one of the witnesses. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the said application directed to register an F.I.R. against the guilty persons on 8.5.2002. When the police authorities proceeded with the investigation the Head Master as well as the Manager of the institution started pressuring upon the petitioner to depose in their favour but the petitioner refused to oblige the Head Master of the institution. This led annoyance to the Manager as well as the Head Master and they cooked up story that the petitioner has got appointment on the basis of a forged and fabricated mark-sheet of B.A., which was alleged to be filed at the time of appointment. Another allegation was made against the petitioner that the petitioner has temporarily embezzled a sum of Rs. 880.06 p., which was collected as fee and had been deposited after some time. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.7.2002 and the salary to the petitioner was stopped w.e.f. 1.3.2002. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of suspension the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court as Writ Petition No. 36874 of 2002 in which the time for filing the counter affidavit was granted. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.7.2002 and the salary to the petitioner was stopped w.e.f. 1.3.2002. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of suspension the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court as Writ Petition No. 36874 of 2002 in which the time for filing the counter affidavit was granted. The aforesaid writ petition is still pending. The Committee of Management appears to be constituted a four-member inquiry committee in order to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Committee to defend himself. It is relevant to mention here that the alleged letter was never received by the petitioner at any point of time and the petitioner was not served with any charge-sheet either by the Committee of Management or by the Inquiry Officer. The Manager of the institution made a publication in “Dainik Jagran” on 19.9.2002. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Committee but the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard and the Committee has also refused to accept any document. The Inquiry Committee without affording any opportunity to the petitioner submitted an ex parte report dated 26.9.2002 and the said report was submitted before the Committee of Management on 29.9.2002 and the Committee of Management has decided to terminate the services of the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that the Committee of Management has never supplied the copy of the inquiry report and did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioner to show as to why the services of the petitioner be not terminated. After passing the aforesaid resolution dated 29.9.2002 the Managing Committee submitted the relevant papers before the District Basic Education Officer for approval. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid institution in question has been upgraded as High School in the year 2001 and in view of the upgradation of the institution the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 have become applicable and the District Basic Education Officer has got no jurisdiction in the matter. Once the institution in question is upgraded to the High School, the Committee of Management should have sought approval from the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board before proceeding to terminate the services of the petitioner. The District Basic Education Officer has got no jurisdiction or authority to either approve or disapprove the proposal of the termination of a teacher of High School. The District Basic Education Officer has got no jurisdiction or authority to either approve or disapprove the proposal of the termination of a teacher of High School. The Basic Education Officer is alleged to have issued notices to the petitioner on 5.10.2002, 26.10.2002 and again on 26.11.2002 but the petitioner could not appear before the District Basic Education Officer as the petitioner was ill. Again a letter was issued to appear before him on 18.12.2002 and to produce his original certificate. The aforesaid letter was received by the petitioner on 24.12.2002 though the date fixed by the Basic Education Officer was 18.12.2002. As the letter was not received by the petitioner, he was not in a position to appear before respondent No. 1. A request to this effect was made to the Basic Education Officer regarding the aforesaid fact but no date was fixed and no information has been given by respondent No. 1 and he proceeded to pass an order approving the order of termination of the petitioner proposed by the Committee of Management vide its order dated 30.12.2002. A copy of the same has been filed Annexure-17 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 30.12.2002, the Committee of Management has also passed an order on 1.1.2003 terminating the services of the petitioner. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-18 to the writ petition. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that before passing the order dated 1.1.2003 the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity and the order impugned is wholly illegal, unjust and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Committee, the Committee of Management or even the Basic Education Officer while granting approval has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The total inquiry is an ex parte and the petitioner has not been informed regarding the place, time and date of the inquiry at any point of time. Even the show cause notice before passing the order of termination has not been given to the petitioner. 7. One of the most considerable points for consideration by this Court is that whether on upgradation of the institution to the High School Level, the District Basic Education Officer was having any jurisdiction to approve the order of termination of the petitioner? 7. One of the most considerable points for consideration by this Court is that whether on upgradation of the institution to the High School Level, the District Basic Education Officer was having any jurisdiction to approve the order of termination of the petitioner? It is now well settled that if the institution has been upgraded to the level of the High School and has been recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, even if it remains unaided, will be governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act and according to the aforesaid Act only the District Inspector of Schools was an authority to approve or disapprove the order of termination of the petitioner. The Basic Education Officer respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to approve the termination of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (1) ADJ 89 (All), Dr. (Smt.) Sushila Gupta v. Joint Director of Education and others. In support of the aforesaid contention the petitioner submits that the similar controversy arose before this Court and Hon’ble the Single Judge while considering all the aspects of the matter has come to the conclusion that once the institution is recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the institution binds itself with the terms and conditions of recognition which includes the applicability of the Act itself. It is not open to the institution to change its option in respect of the applicability of rules and regulations in view of the binding force of the Act, which provides that an institution so recognized shall be governed by the provisions of the same Act. The Intermediate Education Act does not carve out any exception for applicability of rules to the employees of the institution of the earlier Junior High School, which stands upgraded. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact it clearly appears that the Basic Education Officer was having no jurisdiction to approve the termination of the petitioner, as the order itself is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. 10. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact it clearly appears that the Basic Education Officer was having no jurisdiction to approve the termination of the petitioner, as the order itself is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. 10. On the other hand a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents but the question involved in the present writ petition and the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner are to the effect that whether the Basic Education Officer respondent No. 1 was having jurisdiction on the date when he had approved the order of termination of the petitioner. The respondent wanted to justify the order passed by the respondents only on the ground that on the basis of the complaint an inquiry was done and it was proved that the petitioner had got the appointment by producing forged mark-sheet of II Division of the B.A. while the petitioner passed the B.A. in 3rd division. 11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the record. There is no dispute to this effect by the respondents that the aforesaid institution in question was not upgraded up to the High School in the year 2001. This fact has not been denied by the respondents. Therefore, admittedly on the date when the order of termination of the petitioner was approved by respondent No. 1, the provisions of Intermediate Education Act 1921 were made applicable and the authority under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act for approving or disapproving any order is District Inspector of Schools. I have considered the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner (supra). The same controversy was involved in the aforesaid writ petition and a decision to that effect has been taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge that immediately on the date when the Junior High School is upgraded, U.P. Intermediate Education Act will be applicable. There is no room for doubt that the conditions of recognition mandate the compliance of the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act and do not make any exception for following the provisions of 1978 rules for appointment of teacher in the Junior High School. 12. There is no room for doubt that the conditions of recognition mandate the compliance of the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act and do not make any exception for following the provisions of 1978 rules for appointment of teacher in the Junior High School. 12. The aforesaid contention as to whether what would be the provisions applicable upon an upgradation and have been recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act even if remains unaided, arose in the case of Shikhsha Prasar Samiti Babhanan, Gonda v. State of U.P. and others, (1986) UPLBEC 477. The Court clearly held that once the institution was upgraded, the mode and rule of recruitment was to be governed by the provisions of Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 read with provisions of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. 13. I have considered the submissions and the decision of this Court and I am in full agreement that as soon as the institution is upgraded to the High School, any appointment or termination can only be made under the provisions of U.P Intermediate Education Act 1921 and Regulations framed thereunder. 14. The writ petition therefore succeeds and is allowed and the order impugned dated 30.12.2002, Annexure-17 passed by respondent No. 1 and order dated 1.1.2003 Annexure-18 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 2 respectively are hereby quashed and the petitioner will be reinstated in service and be paid salary. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ———