JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th October 2008, passed in Writ Petition No. 35409 of 2004-(Hit Lal and others v. State of U.P. and others). Facts as are borne out from the record relevant for our purposes, are as under : 3. Kishan High School, Bankata Faizabad is an institution aided and recognized under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act. Provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as “Act 1982”) are fully applicable to the teachers of the said Institution. The Committee of Management of the said Institution is stated to have passed a resolution, after holding a departmental enquiry to dismissed its Principal Sri R. P. Yadav, the respondent No. 5. The documents pertaining to the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 20.7.1998 are stated to have been transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad on 7.9.1998, who in turn forwarded the same to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board (herein after referred to as ‘Selection Board’) for approval, as contemplated by Section-21 of the Act 1982.Approval is said to have been granted by the Selection Board on 12.2.2004. Against the said order, respondent No. 5 approached the Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Government, Lucknow. The Secretary wrote a letter dated 11.6.2004 to the Selection Board for reconsideration of the matter. 4. On that basis, Selection Board passed a fresh order dated 12.8.2004 reviewing its earlier order of approval and permitted the respondent No. 5 to lead fresh evidence in support of his case before the Selection Board. 5. This order of the Board dated 12.8.2004 was subjected to challenge before the High Court by means of Writ Petition giving rise to this appeal by Hit Lal and 4 others, who claims to be the life member of the General Body, which constitutes the Committee of Management, subsequently the Committee of Management of the Institution through its Manager Smt. Shyam Kali was also impleaded, as petitioner No. 5. The learned Single Judge under the order impugned, was held that the Selection Board has no power to review under the Act 1982. Therefore, the entire proceeding, taken under the impugned order dated 12.8.2004 were bad and further proceeded to quash the same. The learned Single Judge under the order impugned, was held that the Selection Board has no power to review under the Act 1982. Therefore, the entire proceeding, taken under the impugned order dated 12.8.2004 were bad and further proceeded to quash the same. But in the operative portion the matter has been referred back to the Selection Board. 6. According to the appellant, the matter should have been closed once the review proceedings where found to be bad. Learned Single Judge was not justified in further remanding the matter to the authorities concerned to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It is contended that the last part of the direction is, therefore, bad basically on the ground that approval had been granted earlier and the Board cannot review the same. 7. From a perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge it is apparent that the respondent No. 5, the Principal had contended before the Court that Section-21 of the Act 1982 contemplates prior approval of the Commission and that no order of termination can be made without prior approval of the Commission. According to the respondent No. 5 such prior approval had not been obtained before dismissing him from service. 8. The learned Single Judge has not adverted to the said basic objection of respondent No. 5 and has not returned any finding as to whether his services had been terminated by an order in writing without obtaining prior approval of the Selection Board or not. 9. Another aspect of the matter which did need examination by the learned Single Judge was as to whether the earlier order granting approval to the order of punishment of the Committee of Management was made after affording opportunity to the concerned Principal or not. In case, the order had been made without affording opportunity to the Principal concerned, on a proper application being made by the Principal for recall of such an order which was ex parte has to be considered by the Selection Board in accordance with law. 10. We are not expressing any final opinion on the said aspects, as the aforesaid issues have not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 10. We are not expressing any final opinion on the said aspects, as the aforesaid issues have not been considered by the learned Single Judge. We feel that two vital issues do need examination for fair and just disposal of the writ petition, namely (a) whether dismissal had been effected by an order in writing before obtaining approval from the Selection Board or not and (b) Whether there was a complaint that opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the Principal concerned by the Board, before passing the earlier order of approval or not. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and it is hereby set-aside. The writ petition is restored to its original number. Parties are at liberty to canvass all the points, as may be advised before the learned Single Judge, afresh. The Special Appeal is allowed.