JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, Sri Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.3 and 4 and Sri Dileep Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.5.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.05.2015 whereby the appeal filed by the Committee of Management against the order of Basic Education Officer rejecting the resolution of termination of the petitioner's services was allowed.

3. Subsequently during the pendency of the writ petition, an amendment application was filed in view of the fact that in pursuance to the appeal being allowed, a fresh order had been passed on 19.09.2015 whereby the Basic Education Officer has accepted the resolution of the Committee of Management for removal of the petitioner from the institution in question.

4. The facts in brief are, that the petitioner claiming to have the requisite qualification applied for being appointed to the post of Headmaster with the College run by the respondent no.5. Initially, the appointment was granted to the petitioner and the appointment of the petitioner was also recognized by the Basic Education Officer and the petitioner continued to work in the institution, for almost 10 years.

5. It is argued that subsequent to the said period, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for having obtained the appointment as well as the approval by concealing the material facts. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 10.11.2014 by the Committee of Management calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the appointment granted to him may not be cancelled in view of the fact that the same has been obtained by concealing the material facts.

6. In support of the said, the first charge as levelled against the petitioner was for obtaining the employment, the petitioner had placed reliance on two Experience Certificates having been issued by one Indian Public Inter College, Lucknow, where the petitioner had allegedly worked as an Assistant Teacher from July, 1998 to 10.03.2000 and the certificate issued by one Survodya Public Inter College, Lucknow, where the petitioner had admittedly served as an Assistant Teacher from July, 2000 to 10.08.2003. The petitioner gave a reply to the said show cause notice denying the allegations. The said show cause notice was held by the respondents to be without any merit and orders were passed holding that the appointment of the petitioner in both the said schools were without the requisite qualifications on the date of appointments. It was also recorded that although the Survodya Public Inter College, Lucknow had not responded to the efforts for finding the truth, Indian Public Inter College had given its report. Finding the explanation given by the petitioner to be unacceptable, a resolution came to be passed on 30.11.2014 terminating the services of the petitioner. The said order of termination passed through resolution by the respondent no.5 was sent for approval before the Basic Education Officer who by means of an order dated 16.01.2015 disapproved the resolution of the Committee of Management.

7. The said order rejecting the approval, was challenged in an appeal by the Committee of Management before the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj. The said appeal came to be allowed on 11.05.2015 whereby the disapproval order was set aside. Thereafter the Committee of Management passed an order dated 21.05.2015 stating that services of the petitioner stood terminated and the appointment order was cancelled. In terms of the said order, a fresh order came to be passed by the Basic Education Officer whereby the approval was granted to the resolution of the Committee of Management terminating the services of the petitioner on 19.09.2015. The said order is under challenge by means of filing an amendment application.

8. The contention of the Counsel for