Hon’ble Irshad Ali, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 26.11.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25225 of 1992 (Smt. Kushum Srivastava v. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Basti and others) by which the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of.

3. The facts of the case are that there is a Junior High School under the name of Dukharan Bal Balika Vidyalaya, Yagya Nagar Diwakarpur, District Basti having attached primary school which is part and parcel of the aforesaid institution. The appellant-petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year, 1978 and her appointment was duly approved by the District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 10.7.1978. The appointment of the appellant-petitioner was as untrained Assistant Teacher. The appellant-petitioner was discharging her duties with full satisfaction and her work has been commended time to time by the respondents.

4. The Manager of the institution by means of an order dated 1.1.1991, terminated the services of the appellant-petitioner inter alia on the premises that her appointment has not been granted approval after 30th June, 1978 and that she has failed to obtain L.T. training certificate from a recognized institution.

5. The order of termination dated 1.1.1991 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 25225 of 1992 before this Court. The writ petition was heard by this Court and an order was passed which is being quoted herein below :

“The petitioner is permitted to serve respondent Nos. 2 and 3 personally by taking Dasti summons from the office. Service be made returnable within four weeks. Service affidavit shall be filed, thereafter. These respondents shall be directed in the summons to file counter-affidavit within four weeks. For respondent Nos. 1, the Standing Counsel is present. He is allowed four weeks to file C.A.

Supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner be taken on record.

If the petitioner continues to work as Assistant Teacher in the institution in question, she shall continue in service till further orders and be paid salary for the work which she would render.”

6. On the strength of the interim order passed by this Court in writ petition, the appellant-petitioner continued in service and discharged her duties in the aforesaid institution as an Assistant Teacher (untrained). The writ petition was subsequently, heard and has been decided vide judgement and order dated 26.11.2007 by giving liberty to the appellant-petitioner to approach Additional Director of Education (Basic) for consideration of her claim for grant of exemption from training without being influenced by earlier proceedings. Instead of approaching the Additional Director (Basic) for grant of exemption for training, the appellant-petitioner has preferred the present special appeal before this Court assailing the judgement and order passed by learned Single Judge as well as order of termination passed by the Manager of the institution.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Ashok Khare submitted that the order of termination has been passed by the Manager of the Institution, who has no jurisdiction to pass the order of termination. It is the Committee of Management which can pass the order of termination. Thus, the order of termination is wholly without jurisdiction and on this ground alone the order of termination is not sustainable in law. He further pointed out that this basic question which was raised before the learned Single Judge during the course of arguments in the writ petition which was noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement dated 26.11.2007 but he did not proceed to hold the order of termination to be invalid being without jurisdiction. He next submitted that although the appellant-petitioner was granted appointment as untrained Assistant Teacher, there are Government orders issued from time to time which prescribe that on completion of 10 years service a