JUDGMENT

S.N. Dwivedi, J. - In this case we are concerned with the office of the Head Mistress in the Arya Kanya Pathshala, Higher Secondary School, Pilibhit. The office was vacant. Smt. Manorama Devi Agnihotri, the first respondent, was appointed to the office by the managing committee of the institution. She was appointed by an order of the Manager of the institution dated June 23, 1964. By a subsequent order dated July 9, 1965, her service was terminated. Against the order of termination she filed a writ petition in this Court. The petition was allowed and the order was quashed. Hence this appeal by the institution.

2. The learned single Judge found that the order terminating her service was made without obtaining the approval of the Inspectress of Schools. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the first respondent had not been validly appointed, no approval of the Inspectress of Schools was needed in her case. This argument was also raised before the learned Judge. But he did not accept it.

3. The institution is governed by the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter called the Act) . Sec. 16-F (1) , in so far as it is material to this case, provides :

"............ no person shall be appointed as a Principal, Headmaster or teacher of any recognised institution unless he :-

(a) possesses the prescribed qualifications or has been exempted under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 16-E;

(b) has been recommended by selection committee constituted under Sub. Sec. (2) or (3), as the case may be, of the said section and approved, in the case of Principal or Headmaster by the Regional Deputy Director, Education, and in the case of a teacher by the Inspector ........................."

Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 16-F provides for the mode of selection and the approval. It also states that the Inspector or the Regional Deputy Director, Education, as the case may be, shall give his approval within two weeks of the receipt of the relevant papers from the institution. If he fails to accord his approval within the said period, the approval "shall be deemed to have been accorded." Sec. 16-G (3) provides that no Principal, Headmaster or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emoluments, or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector.

4. The fate of this appeal hinges on the construction of the aforesaid provisions of Sec. 16-F and Sec. 16-G. Admittedly the service of the first respondent was terminated without obtaining prior approval in writing of the Inspectress. Prima facie, there seems to be contravention of the provisions of Sec. 16-F (3) (a) . But on a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid two provisions we are of opinion that the breach of the provisions of Sec. 16-G (3) (a) will not avail the respondent.

5. Sec 16-F(l) provides that no person shall be appointed as a Principal unless, inter alia, the selected candidate for the post has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director, Education. Two expressions in Sub-Sec. (1) are significant. The first expression is "shall be appointed"; the second is "unless he has been approved." These two expressions show that the act of approval should precede the act of appointment. In some context the word "approved" may mean ratification. But in Sub-Sec (I) the word "approval" would not mean ratification as it is the condition precedent for appointment of a person as the Principal of an institution. There it means permission of prior approval.

6. We think that Sec. 16-F (1) is mandatory and not directory. The section is expressed in a prohibitory language "no person shall be appointed as a Principal unless he has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director, Education." Secondly, the object of the section is to ensure higher academic standards in an institution. An efficient teaching staff of an institution will improve the academic standards. It is we