SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is contended that the petitioner was a Assistant Teacher in Sri Goswami Tulsidas Vidyapith Inter College, Erich, Jhansi. The committee of management of the said College passed a resolution on 11. 2. 1990 terminating his services, which was given effect to though no approval of U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission was obtained. He submitted that in view of Section 21 of Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), no order of dismissal or removal can be made by the management without prior approval of the Board. 3. An interim order was passed on 15th April, 1992 while entertaining this writ petition, in the following terms: " Until further orders, the operation of the order dated 12th of February, 1990, terminating the services of the petitioner as well as the effect of the resolution dated 11th February 1990 are stayed. It is made clear that this interim order shall continue till the approval of the Commission is taken by the College to the termination of the petitioners services. " 4. The aforesaid interim order itself makes it clear that the same shall continue till the approval of the Commission is taken by the College to the termination of the petitioners services. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that the aforesaid approval has been granted by the Commission/board on 6. 11. 1992 as communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24. 11. 1992 whereagainst, it is also stated that the petitioner has filed another writ petition no. 10275 of 1993 which is pending before this Court. 6. The only objection raised by means of this writ petition is that the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service except with the prior approval of the Commission/board as contemplated in Section 21 of the Act. The interim order granted by this Court clearly states that the same shall be effective when the Commission grants such approval, if any, which has now been granted. 7. Therefore, so far as the present writ petition is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that once approval has been granted, the objection raised in the present writ petition disappears for the reason that termination would be effective after approval granted by the Commission. 7. Therefore, so far as the present writ petition is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that once approval has been granted, the objection raised in the present writ petition disappears for the reason that termination would be effective after approval granted by the Commission. It is a different matter as to whether the said approval is valid or not, which issue is sub judice before this Court in writ petition no. 10275 of 1993. 8. In this view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition by clarifying that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service till his termination was approved by the Commission/board and shall be entitled for all consequential benefits for such period alone in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that this order shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merit of the validity or correctness of the approval of termination granted by the Commission/board which is subject matter of dispute in another writ petition. .