JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 5.9.2013 passed by Education Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Appeal No. 55 of 2012, Smt. Sunita Thakur v. Maharishi Vidya Mandir and others. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that the petitioner school is affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi (for short, CBSE); respondent no. 2 was initially appointed as part-time clerk vide order dated 31.8.1996 purely on temporary basis; vide order dated 7.7.2000, respondent no. 2 was appointed as Upper Division Clerk; vide order dated 19.7.2007, respondent no. 2 was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (P.E.T.) in the pay-scale of Rs. 4,500 – 125 – 7,000/- and DA 20 % with effect from 1.8.2007; having accepted the scale of pay as offered by the management, vide letter dated 19.7.2007, respondent no. 2 started working as P.E.T. with effect from 1.8.2007; there were some complaints about the misconduct of respondent no. 2, therefore, show cause notice was issued to respondent no. 2 on 20.7.2012 calling her explanation; respondent no. 2 furnished her reply on 4.8.2012; Joint Director of the Committee of Management, vide order dated 27.8.2012, was pleased to terminate the services of respondent no. 2 with the stipulation that respondent no. 2 would be paid three months’ salary in lieu of termination of her services; feeling aggrieved, respondent no. 2 preferred Appeal No. 55 of 2012 before the Education Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar; meanwhile, respondent no. 2 has tendered his resignation on 1.10.2012; learned Education Tribunal, vide judgment impugned dated 5.9.2013, was pleased to allow the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 observing that termination order dated 27.8.2012 was without jurisdiction since the same was passed without making compliance of Rule 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975, and was not passed by the Board of Directors as required by the Service Rules of the schools, however, learned Education Tribunal was pleased to hold that since respondent no. 2 herself has tendered resignation on 1.10.2012, therefore, respondent no. 2 shall be paid salary with effect from 27.8.2012 to 1.10.2012 at the pay scale of Rs. 9,300 –34,800/-; feeling aggrieved, school has preferred present writ petition. 3. I have heard Mrs. 2 herself has tendered resignation on 1.10.2012, therefore, respondent no. 2 shall be paid salary with effect from 27.8.2012 to 1.10.2012 at the pay scale of Rs. 9,300 –34,800/-; feeling aggrieved, school has preferred present writ petition. 3. I have heard Mrs. Anjali Bhargava ((although not argued at all), learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.C. Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, and have carefully perused the record. 4. Rule 11 of the Rules, 1975 reads as under : “11. Dismissal and removal of Teachers. – No order dismissing, removing or termination the services of a teacher or other employee of a recognized school shall be passed save with the prior approval in writing of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari : Provided that in case of recognized schools established and administered by minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, such an order shall not require the approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari but shall be reported to him.” 5. The bare perusal of Rule 11 would demonstrate that no order of dismissal, removal or termination of the teacher or other employee of a recognized school shall be passed without prior approval in writing of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. 6. Let me now examine – as to whether petitioner school falls within the definition of “recognised school”, which is sine qua non to attract Rule 11? 7. “Recognised school” is defined under Rule 2 (3), which reads as under : “2. Definitions. – In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires – (a) … (b) … (c) … (d) … (e) ‘Recognised School’ means any Junior Basic School, not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board or any local body, recognised by the Board before the commencement of these rules for imparting education from Classes I to V.” 8. As per the definition of Rule 2 (3), the junior basic school recognized by the Board shall be considered as recognized school. Undisputedly, petitioner school has never been recognized by the UP Board of Education and is affiliated and recognised by CBSE, New Delhi, therefore, it does not fall within the definition of the “recognised school” and, consequently, Rule 11 cannot be pressed in service. Undisputedly, petitioner school has never been recognized by the UP Board of Education and is affiliated and recognised by CBSE, New Delhi, therefore, it does not fall within the definition of the “recognised school” and, consequently, Rule 11 cannot be pressed in service. Therefore, finding of learned Education Tribunal that since termination order was without prior approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, therefore, was bad in law, cannot be held to be correct. 9. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that as per Rules of Service being followed by the schools, only Board of Directors of the school are competent to pass termination order subject to the condition of payment of salary of three months in lieu thereof. In the present case, it has not been proved by the petitioners that Board of Directors have, by way of valid reason, authorized the Joint Director to pass order of termination of service on behalf of the Board of Directors, therefore, Joint Director was not competent to pass termination order. Consequently, finding of learned Education Tribunal that Joint Director of the school was not competent to pass termination order seems to be correct. 10. In the present case, respondent no. 2 has not challenge the order of the Education Tribunal upholding the validity of the resignation tendered by respondent no. 2. Therefore, finding of learned Education Tribunal that respondent no. 2 has resigned from the post with effect from 1.10.2012 cannot be faulted with. 11. Now the only question remains – as to whether respondent no. 2 should be paid salary as per the pay-scale being paid to the other teachers in the schools recognized by the Board of Education of Government of Uttarakhand, as claimed by respondent no. 2? 12. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that as per CBSE Bye-law no. 3.3. (v), every school affiliated with the CBSC is supposed to pay salaries to the staff not less than corresponding categories of employees in the State Government or as per the scales prescribed by the Government of India. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also do not dispute that while granting the approval to the petitioner school by the State Government to run the school in the State, school was directed to follow Bye-law No. 3.3. (v) of the CBSE. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also do not dispute that while granting the approval to the petitioner school by the State Government to run the school in the State, school was directed to follow Bye-law No. 3.3. (v) of the CBSE. 13. It is true that ordinarily every school affiliated with the CBSE has to follow the Bye-laws of CBSE and must pay the salary of the corresponding categories of the employees in the State Government schools or as per the scales prescribed by the Government of India. However, in the present case, respondent no. 2 was initially appointed as part-time clerk and thereafter was appointed as Upper Division Clerk and thereafter was offered appointment on the post of Physical Education Teacher on 19.7.2007 on the pay-scale of Rs. 4,500 – 125 – 7,000 and DA 20 % and, with open eyes, respondent no. 2 has accepted the offer made on 19.7.2007 and has given joining on 1.8.2007 on the same pay-scale and has not challenged the salary offered to her at the earliest. Therefore, respondent no. 2 at the time of tendering the resignation or after tendering the resignation is estopped to ask the scale of pay akin to the corresponding employees of the State Government schools. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the State Government as well as to the CBSE to hold inquiry as to whether the petitioner school is paying salary as per the Bye-laws of the CBSE to the other staff of the School and if it is found that the petitioner school is not making compliance or is violating the Bye-laws, appropriate action may be taken against the school. 14. Consequently, writ petition succeeds in part. Impugned order is modified to the extent that although resignation of respondent no. 2 is valid with effect from 1.10.2012, however, she would be paid salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 4,500 – 125 – 7,000/- and DA 20 % as offered to respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 19.7.2007 till 30.9.2012. Any amount already paid shall be adjusted therein.