JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management of Hindu Balika Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institution'), which is a private aided Institution recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1921 Act'), has filed this petition for the following reliefs : (i) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of prohibition prohibiting District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur treating Smt. Rajni Jaiswal as Principal Hindu Balika Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya who has been terminated from service, since 23.10.2007 Annexure-1 and also restraining District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur from paying salary to Smt. Rajni Jaiswal as a Principal of Institution, because action of District Inspector of Schools is without jurisdiction after the judgment of Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, (2002) 3 UPLBEC 2817, that it has to be ensured that even aided institution does not become Government owned and controlled Institution. (ii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Prohibition, prohibiting State Government and authorities of State, to enforce the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, in the Hindu Balika Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Mirzapur, being in violation of declaration of law made by Supreme Court that laws of land, including rules and regulation must apply equally to Majority Institution and minority Institution and Section 30 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 say nothing in this Act shall apply to an institution Established by Minority referred to clause (1) of Article 30 of Constitution of India. (iii) to issue a writ order of direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the provision of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 unconstitutional and ultravire Act to the extent they takes away the right of the Management of select and appoint the Teaching and non Teaching staff of his own choice except they disfavour and discriminate non minority run institution from minority Institution being inviolation of declaration of law made by Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai foundation case where in it has been laid down that non minority can establish and administer Educational Institution in the same manner and to the same extent as minority. 2. 2. It is stated that the Committee of Management of the Institution terminated the services of the Principal of the Institution-Rajni Jaiswal and informed the District Inspector of Schools of this decision by the letter dated 23rd October, 2007, but still the District Inspector of Schools is continuing to pay salary to the Principal. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Institution is a private aided Institution, it alone has the authority to appoint teachers and enforce discipline amongst them and, therefore, there is no need to take prior approval for either appointment of teachers or for awarding punishment to them. It is his submission that the right to administrator the Institution includes the right to appoint and take disciplinary action and, therefore, Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1982 Act'), which provides that the Management shall not, except with prior approval of the Board, dismiss any teacher or remove from service, shall not apply to the Institution. He has submitted that the Institution is entitled to enjoy the same rights as Minority Institutions. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others, (2002) 8 SCC 481 and Brahmo Samaj Education Society and others v. State of West Bengal and others, (2004) 6 SCC 224 . 4. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that even if Section 21 of the Act were to apply, then too it was for the Principal concerned to have taken appropriate steps for setting aside the order as has been observed by the Full Bench of this Court in Tuples Educational Society and another v. State of U.P. and another, 2008(4) ADJ 112 (FB) : 2008(3) ESC 1521 (All)(FB), but no such steps were taken by the Principal of the Institution. He, therefore, submits that the District Inspector of Schools is not justified in ignoring the termination order by making payment of salary to the Principal of the Institution. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that in view of Section 21 of the 1982 Act, the decision taken by the Institution to terminate the services of the Principal without taking prior approval of the Board is void and of no consequence. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that in view of Section 21 of the 1982 Act, the decision taken by the Institution to terminate the services of the Principal without taking prior approval of the Board is void and of no consequence. It is also his submission that as the Institution is a private aided Institution, the State can make Regulations dealing with terms and conditions of employment of the teaching staff and the manner in which the teacher can be removed and, accordingly, Section 21 of the 1982 Act will apply to the Institution. 6. I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 7. In order to appreciate the issues raised in this petition, it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the 1982 Act and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission (Procedure for Approval of Punishment) Regulations, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations'). 8. Section 21 of 1982 Act places restriction on the dismissal of teachers and is as follows : “21. Restriction on dismissal etc. of teachers.—The Management shall not, except with the prior approval of the Board, dismiss any teacher or remove him from service, or serve on him any notice of removal from service, or reduce him in rank or reduce his emoluments or withhold his increment for any period (whether temporarily or permanently) and any such thing done without such prior approval shall be void. “ 9. Regulations 4, 5, 6 7 and 8 of the Rules which deals with the procedure for approval of punishment are as follows : “4. Proceeding to be completed.—Before submitting cases to the Commission for approval of the Commission under sub-section(1) of Section 21 the management shall complete all proceedings as per procedure prescribed in Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the rules, if any, and regulations made thereunder or orders issued by the Education Department and/or Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. from time to time in regard to any action mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, proposed to be taken. 5. 5. Documents to accompany.—Such cases shall be submitted to the Commission through the Inspector and while submitting cases to the Commission, the following documents will invariably be submitted to the Commission: (i) Copy of the regulation of management setting up the Inquiry Committee; (ii) Charge-sheet prepared and served on the teacher; (iii) Explanation furnished by the charged teacher in reply to the charge-sheet; (iv) Full record of proceedings including evidence taken and cross examination, if any, done and personal hearing, if any, given by the Inquiry Committee appointed for the purpose; (v) Reports of the Inquiry Committee; (vi) Proposal in regard to the punishment to be inflicted; (vii) Copy of the resolution adopted by the Management in regard to the proposed punishment; (viii) Up-to-date service book and character roll of the charge-sheeted teacher. 6. Inspector to forward the papers.—The Inspector shall ensure that the documents are complete as required in Regulation 5 and shall forward the same ordinarily within 30 days from the date of receipt of the papers in the first instance from the management. He may point out the defects, if any, in the proceedings of the Management. 7. Power of Commission to call for documents.—The Commission may call for any documents considered relevant to the case from the Management, or the Inspector. 8. Disposal by Commission.—The Commission shall after due consideration approve or disapprove the punishment proposed or may issue any other directions deemed fit in the case.” 10. The purpose of seeking prior approval of the Board before imposing any punishment on a teacher is to safeguard the interest of a teacher from the arbitrary exercise of power by the Committee of Management of the Institution. 11. This is what was observed by the Court in Pradumna Kumar Jain v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and others, 1997 (2) ESC 847 (All), while examining the provisions of Regulations. The Court pointed out that the purpose of approval or disapproval of the punishment is to safeguard the interest of the teachers from the arbitrary action of the Committee of Management of the Institution and the observations are : “7......... The purpose and object of incorporation of the approval and disapproval has been ensured to safeguard the interest of the delinquent from the arbitrary and highhanded actions on the part of the Committee of Management. The purpose and object of incorporation of the approval and disapproval has been ensured to safeguard the interest of the delinquent from the arbitrary and highhanded actions on the part of the Committee of Management. The checks and balance on the high handedness of the Committee of Management, as has been sought to be introduced by reason of incorporation of the power to approve or disapprove surely will further the object and purpose if the construction as is being made herein, is accepted in the light of the observations made above.” (emphasis supplied) 12. This Court in Sajjan Singh Yadav v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allahabad and others, 1995 (1) ESC 516, also observed, while examining Section 21 of the 1982 Act and the Regulations 5 and 8 of the Regulations, that Section 21 of the 1982 Act is designed to control the arbitrary exercise of power of punishment vested in the management of the Institution : “6. True, power of imposition of proper punishment is within the realm of the Committee of Management but since no punishment of dismissal or removal from service of a teacher falling within the purview of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 can be inflicted by the management except with the prior approval of the Commission, it becomes the duty of the Commission to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record with a view to determining whether or not the Committee of Management has acted in consonance with the principles of natural justice and awarded punishment commensurate with the charges found proved. In fact Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 is designed to control the arbitrary exercise of power of punishment vested in the management of the institution. The Commission has, therefore, to address itself to all the aspects of the matter including quantum of punishment which may be appropriate and commensurate to the charges of misconduct found proved in a given case before according approval to the proposed punishment.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The Commission has, therefore, to address itself to all the aspects of the matter including quantum of punishment which may be appropriate and commensurate to the charges of misconduct found proved in a given case before according approval to the proposed punishment.” (emphasis supplied) 13. A Full Bench of this Court in Smt. J.K. Kalra v. R.I.G.S. Meerut and others, 1996 (2) ESC 421 (All), also considered whether Section 16(G)(3)(a) of the 1921 Act is applicable to a recognized and Government aided minority institution which provides for taking prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools before discharging, removing or dismissing from service or reducing in rank or subjecting to any diminution in emoluments or terminating the services of a teacher of a recognized institution and observed : “In the present case it is not necessary to refer to the various kinds of the regulatory measures which may be adopted by the State in running the educational institutions by the minorities. The question involved before this Bench is as to whether a regulatory measure can be imposed by the State or its authorities in the matter of dismissal, discharge or other penalties which may be imposed by the Management of the institution on the teachers working in the institution. The requirement of obtaining prior approval of an authority constituted under any Act before imposing any penalty on terminating his service can be treated as valid regulatory measure without offending the right of the minorities to take disciplinary proceedings against the teachers employed in the institution.” (emphasis supplied) 14. The Full Bench, after examining the Regulations framed under the Act and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956 ; in St. The Full Bench, after examining the Regulations framed under the Act and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956 ; in St. Xaviers College v. State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1389 and in Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 SC 311 also observed : “These decisions have settled the law that the State can make Regulations whereby the action of the Management in discharging, dismissing removing or imposing any penalty on a member of teaching staff will be subject to approval of the authority appointed in that behalf by the State....................The analysis of all these decisions clearly indicates that the test laid down was that in case there is no guidelines provided under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder for granting or withholding the approval of any order imposing a penalty on a teacher or employee of a minority institution, such provision would be invalid but in case there is sufficient guidelines, the provisions requiring the prior approval will be valid. Section 16-G(3)(a) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides that no Principal Headmaster or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminuation in emoluments, or served with notice or termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. The question as to whether this provision will be applicable to minority institutions has been considered in various decisions of this Court............An examination of the provisions of Section 16-G(3) (a) of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder clearly indicates that there are sufficient guidelines provided to the District Inspector of Schools under Section 16-G(3)(a) of the Act while according or refusing approval to the decision of the Committee of Management under Section 16-G(3)(a) of the Act. ........................ These Regulations clearly law down the guidelines relating to the substantive part when and on what grounds the punishment can be imposed on an employee. The second part relates to the procedure which is to be followed and third part relates to the guidance to the Inspector within which time and on perusal of what papers he is to form opinion in according the approval for grant of approval to the Management with regard to the punishment sought to be imposed by it. The second part relates to the procedure which is to be followed and third part relates to the guidance to the Inspector within which time and on perusal of what papers he is to form opinion in according the approval for grant of approval to the Management with regard to the punishment sought to be imposed by it. The District Inspector of Schools has to examine the papers of the Committee of Management which has framed the charges, the report of the Inquiry Officer and the reply submitted by the employee and the evidence in support of the charges and on examining these papers he is to form opinion whether the punishment has been imposed following the procedure as provided therein and on the basis of the evidence which supports the grounds mentioned under Regulations 31 and 32. These are sufficient guidelines provided to the District Inspector of Schools to come to a conclusion whether he should grant the approval or not to the decision of the Management in respect of the punishment of an employee of the institution.” (emphasis supplied) 15. It needs to be noticed that the Institution is aided by the State. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra), on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been observed that when aid is granted by the State to a private professional educational institution or other aided Institutions, the State is also under an obligation to protect the interest of the teaching and non-teaching staff as a result of which Rules and Regulations can be framed to promote the efficiency of teachers, discipline and fairness of administration and the manner in which a teacher or any other member of the staff can be removed. The observations are as follows : “72. Once aid is granted to a private professional educational institution, the Government or the State agency, as a condition of the grant of aid, can put fetters on the freedom in the matter of administration and management of the institution. The State, which gives aid to an educational institution, can impose such conditions as are necessary for the proper maintenance of the high standards of education as the financial burden is shared by the State. The State would also be under an obligation to protect the interest of the teaching and non-teaching staff. The State, which gives aid to an educational institution, can impose such conditions as are necessary for the proper maintenance of the high standards of education as the financial burden is shared by the State. The State would also be under an obligation to protect the interest of the teaching and non-teaching staff. In many States, there are various statutory provisions to regulate the functioning of such educational institutions where the States give, as a grant or aid, a substantial proportion of the revenue expenditure including salary, pay and allowances of teaching and non-teaching staff. It would be its responsibility to ensure that the teachers working in those institutions are governed by proper service conditions. The State, in the case of such aided institutions, has ample power to regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualifications for the same. Ever since In Re The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, this Court has upheld, in the case of aided institutions, those regulations that served the interests of students and teachers. Checks on the administration may be necessary in order to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound and will serve the academic needs of the institutions. In other words, rules and regulations that promote good administration and prevent mal- administration can be formulated so as to promote the efficiency of teachers, discipline and fairness in administration and to preserve harmony among affiliated institutions. At the same time it has to be ensured that even an aided institution does not become a Government-owned and controlled institution. Normally, the aid that is granted is relatable to the pay and allowances of the teaching staff. In addition, the Management of the private aided institutions has to incur revenue and capital expenses. Such aided institutions cannot obtain that extent of autonomy in relation to management and administration as would be available to a private unaided institution, but at the same time, it cannot also be treated as an educational institution departmentally run by Government or as a wholly owned and controlled Government institution and interfere with constitution of the governing bodies or thrusting the staff without reference to Management. Other Aided Institutions. 73. There are a large number of educational institutions, like schools and non-professional colleges, which cannot operate without the support of aid from the State. Other Aided Institutions. 73. There are a large number of educational institutions, like schools and non-professional colleges, which cannot operate without the support of aid from the State. Although these institutions may have been established by philanthropists or other public-spirited persons, it becomes necessary, in order to provide inexpensive education to the students, to seek aid from the State. In such cases, as those of the professional aided institutions referred to hereinabove, the Government would be entitled to make regulations relating to the terms and conditions of employment of the teaching and non-teaching staff whenever the aid for the posts is given by the State as well as admission procedures. Such rules and regulations can also provide for the reasons and the manner in which a teacher or any other member of the staff can be removed. In other words, the autonomy of a private aided institution would be less than that of an unaided institution.” (emphasis supplied) 16. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, does not help the petitioner. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Brahmo Samaj Education Society (supra). 18. This decision also does not help the petitioner as the Supreme Court, after making reference to the decision rendered in T.M.A. Pai (supra), observed : “10. When a larger Bench consisting of eleven Judges of this Court in T.M.A. Pai, has declared what the law on the matter is, we do not want to dilute the effect of the same by analysing various statements made therein or indulge in any dissection of the principles underlying it. We would rather state that the State Government shall take note of the declarations of law made by this Court in this regard and make suitable amendments to their laws, rules and regulations to bring them in conformity with the principles set out therein.” 19. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that prior approval of the Board under Section 21 of the 1982 Act is not required cannot be accepted. 20. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that prior approval of the Board under Section 21 of the 1982 Act is not required cannot be accepted. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that as the order terminating the services of Rajni Jaiswal as Principal of the Institution had been passed by the Committee of Management of the Institution, it was obligatory for the Principal of the Institution to have sought the quashing of the said order and in this connection he has placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Tuples Educational Society (supra). 21. What is to be noticed is that the petitioner has not impleaded the Principal of the Institution Rajni Jaiswal whose services were terminated by the petitioner as a respondent in the writ petition. Even otherwise, Section 21 of the 1982 Act provides that any decision taken by the Management to dismiss any teacher or remove him from service without approval of the Board shall be void. In the present case, admittedly no approval of the Board was taken before termination of the services of the teacher. The order is, therefore, clearly void and the District Inspector of Schools was, therefore, justified in ignoring the order. The decision in Tuples Educational Society (supra) does not help the petitioner. It has been observed that a thing which is required to be done in the manner provided in the Act or Statute should be done in that manner and and not otherwise and no direction can be issued in derogation of the Rules and Regulations. In fact, paragraph 120 of the decision also does not help the petitioner because what has been held is that unless the offending provision of the Act is repealed or set aside, it cannot be ignored. Paragraph 120 is as follows : “120. It is rightly submitted by Sri D.K. Arora, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as Sri P.S. Baghel, that there shall not be implied repeal of Regulations framed under the NCTE Act or jurisdiction issued under sub-section (5) of Section 28 of the U.P. State Universities Act, shall not ipse dixit repeal the statutory provisions. In case, there is any repugnancy, ambiguity or violation of fundamental rights, then aggrieved party may impugn such alleged offending provisions under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution.” 22. In case, there is any repugnancy, ambiguity or violation of fundamental rights, then aggrieved party may impugn such alleged offending provisions under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution.” 22. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any of the relief. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ——————