JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner is a registered society. It runs an educational institution called Sri Agrasen Kanya Inter College, Varanasi. It employed Smt. Hemlata Shah (Respondent No. 2) as a Science Teacher in this Institution with effect from 8th July, 1968. She was placed on one year's probation. When the academic year was coming to a close, the Management took up the case of the 2nd respondent. The principal of the institution submitted a report to the Manager, who forwarded the same to the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee on 7th May, 1969, resolved not to confirm the 2nd respondent because her work was not found satisfactory. In compliance of Section 16-G (3) (b) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, papers relating to this matter- were sent by the Managing Committee to the Regional Inspectress of the Girls Schools for approval. The Regional Inspectress on 24th May, 1969, conveyed to the Management her approval to the proposal. Thereafter, the management served a notice on respondent No. 2 terminating her services on one month's notice. It appears that subsequently, respondent No. 2 made a representation before the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools. On 15th July, 1969, the Regional Inspectress recalled the order granting the approval. The order dated 15th July, 1969, stated that the order terminating the services of the teacher contained allegations of misconduct against her. They were tantamount to casting stigma on her work and character. The order was hence illegal.

2. The Society challenges the validity of this order on the ground that the Regional Inspectress of the Girls Schools has no power to entertain a review or appeal against her own order granting approval. Under clause (c) of sub-sec. (3) of Section 16-G of the Act, the aggrieved party may prefer an appeal to the Regional Deputy Director of Education against the order approving or disapproving the proposal. There is no provision for an appeal or review or representation to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools herself against her own order. The 2nd respondent could have, if she so liked, preferred an appeal to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, instead of making a representation to the Regional Inspectress. That was incompetent.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, urged that this is not a case fit for interference in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution because on its face the order which purported to be a simple notice of termination cast stigma on the character of the petitioner and so, in law, it amounted to an order of dismissal from service. An order of dismissal could not under the regulations be passed without requiring the teacher to show cause against the charges. No such notice to show cause was given to the teacher. No formal enquiry into the charges was held. The petitioner never had an opportunity of meeting the charges. Consequently, being an order of dismissal, the impugned notice was illegal. Since the petitioner's services were in law terminated by an illegal order the mere fact that it has been set aside by another illegal order should be sufficient for not exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court.

4. The petitioner was appointed on a year's probation. The Management of the Institution conducted an informal enquiry into the work and conduct of the respondent as required by the regulations. The Managing Committee came to the conclusion that for reasons mentioned in the report of the Principal the respondent was not suitable for confirmation. As required by the regulations, it recorded its decision in the form of a resolution. The resolution contained the reasons which had impelled the Committee to come to that conclusion. The resolution was sent to the Inspectress of Schools for approval of the proposal to discharge, the respondent. The Inspectress of Schools agreed with the proposal and accorded the requisite a