Prior approval of the Inspector or Regional Inspector is required for termination of service of Class IV employees in a recognized institution under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

( 1 ) CHALLENGING the order dated 30. 11. 1987 whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated the present writ petition has been filed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner claiming himself to be appointed as a demonstrator was initially suspended by order dated 10. 8. 1987. The said order was challenged in a writ petition which was disposed of without interference and with a direction that if the petitioner makes a representation, the same shall be decided. The petitioner complains that although the petitioner made representation before the District Inspector of Schools in terms of the aforesaid order, but his service was terminated by order dated 30. 11. 1987 by the Principal of the Institution concerned. Even after the District Inspector of Schools was approached by the petitioner, his application was rejected by order dated 29. 12. 1987.

( 3 ) THE respondents filed counter-affidavit contending that the petitioner was appointed as Class ivth employee and there was no post of demonstrator and the petitioner was also dealt with as a class IVth employee. It is stated that after completion of due enquiry and giving all opportunities, ultimately his service was terminated by the impugned order and the matter was duly dealt with by the concerned District Inspector of Schools and has been approved.

( 4 ) THE petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit. Pending writ petition, the original petitioner expired and his heirs filed substitution application as in respect of money claim in view of the death of the petitioner the heirs are having substantial interest to proceed with the writ petition.

( 5 ) AT the time of hearing, the parties agreed to final disposal of the writ petition at this stage as the affidavits have been exchanged.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the documents disclosed along with counter-affidavit indicate that the forged documents have been filed and the petitioner was actually not given any opportunity to defend his case. In respect of such contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure Nos. 9 and 10 to the counter-affidavit and contended that the report dated 14. 11. 1987 prepared by the enquiry officer records that the petitioner was granted opportunity to defend on 15. 11. 1987 which is impossible and this shows that the petitioner was not actually given any opportunity. In respect of this contention the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is trying to take advantage of a typographical mistake and the said mistake is apparent from Annexure No. 8 to the counter-affidavit which indicates that the petitioner sought for the documents on 12. 11. 1987 showing that he was given opportunity on 12,11. 1987 and not on 15. 11. 1987 which is a typographical mistake and contrary to the specific record bearing the actual date being Annexure no. 8 to the counter-affidavit. This contention of the respondents is prima facie acceptable. Moreover, it appears that even the petitioner did not take-up such point either in the writ petition or in the rejoinder-affidavit particularly when such a contention is a contention on facts and are required to be pleaded and cannot be urged for the first time at the time of hearing. In the aforesaid circumstances, the said contention of the petitioner is not acceptable.

( 7 ) SECOND contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of provision of Regulation 31, the respondents are required to obtain prior approval before termination of the petitioner. Admittedly that having not been done, the petitioner is entitled to quashing of the order of termination. Reference has been made to provision of Section 16g (3) of the U. P. Intermediate Act, 1921 and Regulation 31 of the Regulations framed under the said Act. With reference to aforesaid provisions of law, the contention has been made that the order of termination without approval of district Inspector of Schools is illegal. Such contention raised before the Distr