Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. Present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher and to pay the entire arrears of salary and continue to pay the current salary as and when falls due. Subsequently, the petition and prayer was amended when amendment application was allowed with permission of the order of the Court dated 6.8.2004 and prayer was added to issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 16.5.2003 passed by Manager of the Institution and the order dated 8.5.2003 passed by respondent No. 2 Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bulandshahar (Annexures 2 and 3 respectively).

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner• was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1995 and in the year 1997 he was selected for Tribhasha Sahayak Adhyapak. There was no complaint against the work and conduct of the petitioner of any kind. Subsequently, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 10.5.2002 without disclosing any reason and charges. Thereafter the letter dated 25.5.2002 was issued to the petitioner to file reply to the charges mentioned therein. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.5.2001. Nothing was found against the petitioner, however, the respondent No. 3, Committee of Management served the charge-sheet dated 3.6.2002 stating therein that the petitioner has beaten the students and misbehaved with them. Again the reply was submitted against the charge-sheet on 8.7.2002 and also adduced evidence in support of his defence. Thereafter the petitioner has not heard anything regarding the enquiry and no opportunity for hearing was given. Subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner. Since there was no option, hence, the writ petition was filed. When the reply was submitted, the application of the parents of the students were also filed to the effect that the petitioner has never punished them nor misbehaved. Subsequently, in the counter-affidavit filed by one Rajesh Kumar Singh, Principal, on behalf of the respondent No. 3 Committee of Management, it was informed that the petitioner was dismissed from service and the same was approved by Basic Siksha Adhikari (hereinafter referred to as “B.S.A”) by the order dated 8.5.2003. Thereafter the petition and prayer was amended with permission of the Hon’ble Court and the dismissal and approval was also challenged.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the enquiry report, if any, was behind back of the petitioner no opportunity of hearing was afforded and apart from that the dismissal order dated 16.4.2003 was without approval of the B.S.A. The prior approval was required in view of the Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and conditions of service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1978”). But in the present case there was no prior approval hence the order of dismissal as well as the subsequent alleged approval is against the provision. Hence, in view of the fact, the same was liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the present case in view of the Rule 16 of Rules 1978, the provision of disciplinary proceedings of UP. Basic Education Staff, Rules 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1973”) is applicable and hence, there is alternative remedy of filing appeal against the order of approval passed by the District Basic Education Officer, hence this petition is not maintainable. However, as far as the provision for prior approval before order of dismissal is concerned, this provision is not disputed.

6. Considered the submissions of counsel for the parties. As far as the objection regarding whether there is alternative remedy or not, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provision of Rules