JUDGMENT

Gyanendra Kumar, J. - The admitted facts of the case are that Tilak Inter College, Bareilly is run by the Municipal Board, Bareilly. By means of a resolution dated 21-9-1962 the Municipal Board had appointed the respondent (B.K. Mehrotra) as Principal of the aforesaid College on one year's probation. AcCordingly, letter dated 16-10-1962 was issued by the President of the Board asking the respondent to join his duties within ten. clays of the receipt of the letter. The respondent-reported for duty on 25-10-1962 but on account of the unwillingness of the then acting Principal, the charge of the office could be handed over to him only on 31-10-1962.

2. A penal of Inspectors appointed under the Intermediate Education Act II of 1921, visited the College on the 14th and 15th of February, 1963 and, inter alia, commented: "The new Principal Shri B.K. Mehrotra is a man of great potentiality.... He has been doing a lot to improve the position of the College since he has taken over charge It has come into the hands of a new Principal, who, with the members of the staff and management, is working with 'missionary spirit and zeal for the betterment and improvement of the institution."

3. On 31-10-1963 a resolution was passed by the Municipal Board extending the probationary period of the respondent up to December, 1963. However, in its meeting held on 16-12-1963 the Board resolved that "the services of Shri B.K. Mehrotra. Principal, Tilak Inter College be not confirmed and also his probationary period be not extended any more. Consequently his services stand expired forthwith. Shri Radhey Raman Saxena at present Lecturer, Azad Inter College, who is the senior most Lecturer in both, the Colleges, shall officiate as Principal, Tilak Inter College from tomorrow 17-12-1963."

4. The respondent challenged the above order by means of writ petition 'No. 78 of 1964 which was allowed by Tripathi, j., and the resolution passed by 'the Municipal Board in its meeting dated 16th December, 1963, terminating the services of the petitioner (now respondent) was quashed. The Municipal Board has, therefore, come up in Special Appeal filed on 9-9-1964.

5. On 28-4-1967 the respondent move( an application in this appeal for permission to amend his writ petition by adding a few new grounds thereto. The propose( ground No. XI was as under :

"XI Because there being no prior approval, for the termination of the service o the petitioner, of the District Inspector o Schools contemplated by sub-sec. (3) o Section 16-G of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, the order terminating the services of the petitioner was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction."

6. When this application came up to consideration before this Bench on 11,10 1958, the learned counsel for the appellant Board candidly conceded that the Inter mediate Education Act also applied u schools and Intermediate College of Municipal Boards in Uttar Pradesh on 16-12 1963, when the impugned resolution was passed by the appellant Board. He also admitted that the permission of the District Inspector Of Schools was not obtained prim to the passing of the impugned resolution dated 16-12-1963 and to the 'issuing of the order of termination of the respondent' service thereunder. However, the learn& counsel for the appellant-Board contended that the respondent was still on probation on the aforesaid date (16-12-1963) and nu such previous approval in respect of him was necessary under the provisions of the Act. In view of the concession and statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant-Board, the respondent's application for addition of fresh grounds to the memo of his writ petition was allowed by our order dated 11-10-1968.

7. In the appeal before us, the respondent has resisted the order of termination of his service by resolution dated 16-12-1963 passed by the Municipal Board, on the following two grounds :

1. That there being no prior approval for the termination of his service by the Distri