( 1 ) THE petitioner-registered trust in the first petition challenges the order of the Tribunal under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated September 1 1975 at Annexure C by which the Tribunal has declared invalid the notice terminating the services of opponent No. 1 teacher and it has further declared that opponent no 1. teacher continued in service and would be entitled to receive his hack wages. Opponent No. 1 was engaged in this school on June 11 1973 as a probationer. A show cause notice was issued to this teacher on April 4 1975 at Annex A on various grounds mentioned in the said notice. The teacher had submitted his reply on April 9 1975 The management had proposed termination of the service of this teacher and had sought approval of the D. E. O. under sec. 36 (1) (b) of the Act as the D. E. O. was the officer authorised in this behalf by the Board. This proposal was received by the D. E. O. on April 16 1975 The D. E. O. kept the matter for hearing on April 28 1975 The management during the pendency of this proceeding by the order at Annex. B dated June 18 1975 terminated the services of opponent No. 1 on the ground that considering his conduct and as he was on probation his further continuance in service was not considered to be in the interest of the school. It was further stated in the said order that his explanation was not satisfactory and as the approval against the proposed action had been sought from the D. E. O. who had heard the parties but as within the prescribed period his approval order had not been received under sec. 36 (2) the said action was deemed to have been approved by the said officer and therefore the services of opponent No. 1 on the expiry of his pro- bationery period were terminated. The D. E. O. had passed the order dated June 13 1975 refusing approval which however had been received by the school authorities only on June 21 1975 The aggrieved teacher had therefore moved the Tribunal by raising a dispute under sec. 38 (1) in respect of this order terminating his services by an application made to the Tribunal on June 23 1975 and the management had also filed an appeal against the D. E. Os order before the Tribunal on June 30 1975 In both the proceeding the Tribunal passed this common order. It set aside the order terminating the services of this teacher and reinstated him as aforesaid with back wages and the appeal filed by the managing trustee had also been dismissed. That is why petitioner No. 1 the trust along with its manager petitioner No. 2 have challenged the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in this petition.

( 2 ) MR. Patel raised four points in this petition:1 As the management had complied with the provisions of sec. 36 (1) (a) and (b) the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to set aside the impugned order of the management;2 As the D. E. O. had not communicated his decision within 45 days to the management the approval was deemed to have been granted under sec. 36 (2) and on that short ground the marl managements appeal should have been allowed by the Tribunal. 3 Once sec. 36 (1) (b) has thus been properly complied with and the managements proposed action has been deemed to have been appro- ved the Tribunal would have no power to decide the dispute on merits by taking evidence and therefore the impugned order was completely without jurisdiction. 4 That in any event the Tribunal had not duly appreciated the evidence led in the case and therefore it should not have interfered with the managements order by deciding the dispute on merits.

( 3 ) BEFORE we go into the relevant contentions in both the petitions it would be proper to consider at the outset the relevant scheme of the Act. The Act has been enacted for regulation of secondary education in the State of Gujarat and to establish a Board for that purpose and it has received assent on September 28 1973 Under sec. 2 (u) secondary education has been defined as education including