JUDGMENT

Mathur, J. - This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Roman Catholic Prefecture of Gorakhpur and by St. Thomas Intermediate College, Shahganj, district Jaunpur, to challenge the order, Annexure XV, of the Deputy Director of Education, whereby approval to the termination of the services of the two probationary teachers, namely, Rama Shanker Misra and Firmctaus Hussain Ansari, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, was not granted.

2. Both the respondents were appointed teachers in the Intermediate College petitioner No. 2, on 22-7-1968. Tile appointment was on one year's probation. On 19-5-1969 the Managing Committee passed a resolution to terminate the services of the respondents on the ground of unsatisfactory work, and on 24-5-1969 the Manager of the College moved the District Inspector of Schools for the grant of approval. The District Inspector of Schools wanted some additional information which was supplied under letter dated 31-5-1969, Annexure 'III'. When the District Inspector of Schools did not communicate his decision in spite of the two reminders, petitioner No. 2 served a notice on 10-6-1969, on both the respondents terminating their services. This was done because it was necessary to give one month's notice of termination of service to the probationers and if the services were not terminated before the expiry of one year's probation, the petitioners would have been deemed to have been confirmed. Thereafter the petitioners informed the District Inspector of Schools of the action taken. The District Inspector of Schools served a show cause notice on respondents 3 and 1 on 16-6-1969 and on 28-6-I969 dismissed the request of the petitioners on the ground that there existed no provision for granting approval to the notice of termination already issued. The petitioners moved the District Inspector of Schools for reconsideration, and when this was not done they preferred appeals before the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director allowed the appeals and referred the matter to the District Inspector of Schools, who stuck to his old opinion and evidently disregarded the directions of the Deputy Director of Education. He again refused to grant approval after the notice of termination had been served on the respondents. This order, dated 30-10-1969, is Annexure XII. The petitioners then preferred two appeals before the Deputy Director of Education, who dismissed them on merits. The order of the Deputy Director of Education is Annexure XV to the Writ Petition.

3. The District Inspector of Schools evidently took a wrong view of the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act and of the Regulations. He did not make a difference between simple termination of service and discharge, dismissal or removal by way of punishment. A period of six weeks is provided for disciplinary proceeding taken for discharge, removal or dismissal by way of punishment, and not for mere termination of service. For simple termination, it is not necessary for the Management to serve a show cause notice on the teacher. The resolution of the Managing Committee shall be sufficient unless found that the resolution was mala fide or arbitrary. It is also not necessary for the District Inspector of Schools to serve a show cause notice on the teacher, but he shall be fully competent to give a hearing to the teacher and also a show cause notice, if considered necessary, before deciding whether to grant or not to grant approval to the termination of service. It shall be, for the District Inspector of Schools to himself decide the nature of the inquiry to be conducted by him before taking the decision. The procedure to be adopted shall naturally depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is necessary for the District Inspector of Schools to take a very quick decision in the matter. He must keep in mind that a final decision has to be taken before the expiry of the period of probation and that one month's notice of terminat