JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.N. Srivastava, J.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has canvassed the validity of the order dated 27.5.2002 (contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur whereby he lent approval to the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 27.3.2002 and 10.4.2002 passed by Committee of Management of Mahanth Bada Shiv Das Udaseen Adarsh Vidyalay Hasanpur, Saidpur District Ghazipur resolving to terminate the services of the petitioner as Head Master. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner began his submissions stating that no charge-sheet was framed or served to the petitioner and hence order of termination lacks in validity. He further submitted that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari accorded approval to the resolution of the Committee of Management without any application of mind, which is discernible from the cryptic order which enumerates no reasons whatsoever and as such, proceeds the submissions, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari acted mechanically and therefore, entire proceedings are vitiated in law. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for Committee of Management as also learned Standing Counsel tried to justify the impugned order containing approval urging that the order of the B.S.A. need not be exhaustive as it has been passed agreeing to the contents of the resolution and also charge against the petitioner and therefore, the order lending approval to the resolution has justly been passed. 4. From a perusal of the record, it would transpire that Committee of Management passed resolution dated 27.3.2002 and 10.4.2002 the substance of which was that the petitioner was absenting from duties unaccountably and further that he had removed records and have not made available the same to the Committee and ultimately, it was resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner. The aforesaid resolution was sent to Basic Shiksha Adhikari Ghazipur to which it would further appear, the aforesaid authority accorded approval sans any reasons vide order dated 27.5.2002. It would further appear that prior to according approval, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 26.4.2002 on which date it is alleged that the petitioner appeared but on account of absence of Basic Shiksha Adhikari from the office, no hearing took place. It would further appear that prior to according approval, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 26.4.2002 on which date it is alleged that the petitioner appeared but on account of absence of Basic Shiksha Adhikari from the office, no hearing took place. It is further alleged that the petitioner made a representation to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 26.4.2002 and without considering the said representation, and without fixing any next date in the matter, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari proceeded to pass the impugned order lending approval to the resolution of the Committee of Management bereft of any reasons in support of his satisfaction. It would further transpire from the record that no charges were framed in the case nor any charge-sheet was served and further, no disciplinary enquiry is indicated to have been initiated in the matter or any evidence was adduced to substantiate the charge if any against the petitioner. There is also nothing on record suggestive of observing the principles of natural justice. 5. The petitioner having been appointed in the year 1978 claims to have since been confirmed on the post of Headmaster. No doubt, allegations levelled against him were of serious nature but at the same time, due procedure and fair play required that the petitioner should have been proceeded against accordingly in terms of the provisions of Basic Shiksha Adhiniyam and U.P. Recognised Basic Junior High School (Recruitment and Condition of Service for Teachers) Rules, 1978 by serving him charge-sheet and by initiating disciplinary enquiry. Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rules deals with the conditions of service which says that no Headmaster or teacher of the recognised Schools may be discharged, removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any reduction in rank or service of notice except with the approval of the B.S.A. 6. The main object of the legislation is to regulate the service conditions of the teachers in the private educational institutions and for ensuring the security of service of the teachers. It is argued that private institution were punishing Teachers on flimsy grounds without framing charges and without giving an opportunity to explain. In the preamble it is also stated that the Act is to provide for terms and conditions of service of teachers and to control of the recognized private educational institution. It is argued that private institution were punishing Teachers on flimsy grounds without framing charges and without giving an opportunity to explain. In the preamble it is also stated that the Act is to provide for terms and conditions of service of teachers and to control of the recognized private educational institution. From a close scrutiny of the statute it is clear that no teacher employed in any private Basic educational institution shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his appointment be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the competent authority. It is clear from a perusal of the statute that when a proposal to dismiss, remove or reduced in rank or otherwise terminate the appointment of any teacher employed in any private educational institution is communicated to the competent authority, the competent authority shall if it is satisfied that there are adequate and reasonable grounds for such proposal, approve such dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination of appointment. In this perspective, it is essential that requirement of intendment of the legislature is not satisfied merely by passing a cryptic order running into three lines. Whenever any proposal is received by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, a duty is cast on him to consider (1) whether charges have been framed and served, (2) whether proper enquiry has been conducted, (3) whether principles of natural justice have been observed in compliance, (4) whether the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer/Disciplinary Authority has grouting in reasons and finally (5) whether there is any element of bias or malafides in the action of the Committee in recommending termination (6) whether reply, explanation and other evidence adduced against the teacher or headmaster against whom resolution has been passed have been reckoned with and (7) whether concerned Rules applicable to the case have been observed in compliance. In case the competent authority is satisfied with the requirement, he must assign reasons for enforcing his conclusions in favour of approval of proposal sent by the Committee of Management. A laconic order of approval sans reasons as has been passed in the case in hand, does not satisfy the requirement of the statute. 7. In case the competent authority is satisfied with the requirement, he must assign reasons for enforcing his conclusions in favour of approval of proposal sent by the Committee of Management. A laconic order of approval sans reasons as has been passed in the case in hand, does not satisfy the requirement of the statute. 7. Having considered the matter in entirety and regard being had to arguments advanced across the bar, I am of the view that due procedure and fair play have not been observed in compliance and further no reasons have been assigned by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in lending approval to the resolutions of the Committee of Management and thus, I have no hesitation to hold that complete non-application of mind is discernible from the impugned order. Although perversity of the entire proceeding and non application of mind is elicited from the facts itself, still, reference is made to a decision of this Court reported in 1988 UPLBEC 2002 in the substance of has been held is that the authority has to assign reasons for according approval or disapproval. This decision reinforces the view being taken by me in this judgment. 8. In All Saints High School Hyderabad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1980 SC 1042 , a minority institution, a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court while dealing with the validity of Sections 3 to 7 of Andhra Pradesh Recognized Private Educational Institutions Control Act, 1975 observed that Section 3 (2) of the Act under the guise on conferring the power of approval, confers upon the competent authority an appellate power of great magnitude. That authority it is further observed is made a judge both of facts and on law by the conferment upon it of a power to test the validity of the proposal on the vastly subjective touchstone of adequacy and reasonableness. The Apex Court further observed that though the section provides that the competent authority shall approve the proposed order if it is satisfied that it is based on adequate and reasonable grounds, its plain and necessary implication is that it shall not approve the proposal unless it is satisfied. The Apex Court further observed that though the section provides that the competent authority shall approve the proposed order if it is satisfied that it is based on adequate and reasonable grounds, its plain and necessary implication is that it shall not approve the proposal unless it is satisfied. The conferment of such a power on an outside authority, the exercise of which is made to depend purely on subjective consideration arising out of twin formula of adequacy and reasonableness, cannot but constitute an infringement of the right guaranteed by Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India. 9. In a recent decision in Appeal (Civil) No. 2900 of 2007, Daya Ram v. Raghunath and others, decided on 15.6.2007, the Apex Court reiterated the necessity of giving reasons in the following words : "Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed : “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed : “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 10. As a result of foregoing discussion, the Court is of the view that the impugned order lending approval to the resolution of the Committee of Management is unsustainable in law. The “inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 10. As a result of foregoing discussion, the Court is of the view that the impugned order lending approval to the resolution of the Committee of Management is unsustainable in law. The Court is further of the view that the matter be relegated to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for reconsideration of the matter after taking into account the entire facts and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the matter is being relegated to Basic Shiksha Adhikari Ghazipur, this Court has refrained from expressing any opinion on merits. None of the observations of this Court may be construed to have been expressed on merits of the case. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.5.2002 is quashed. The matter is remanded to Basic Shiksha Adhikari Ghazipur for consideration of the matter afresh. Since the matter is being remanded to the B.S.A., this Court refrains from delving into the merits and legality of the resolution of the Committee of Management. ————