Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral)

Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 5.9.2013 passed by Education Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Appeal No. 55 of 2012, Smt. Sunita Thakur v. Maharishi Vidya Mandir and others.

2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that the petitioner school is affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi (for short, CBSE); respondent no. 2 was initially appointed as part-time clerk vide order dated 31.8.1996 purely on temporary basis; vide order dated 7.7.2000, respondent no. 2 was appointed as Upper Division Clerk; vide order dated 19.7.2007, respondent no. 2 was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (P.E.T.) in the pay-scale of Rs. 4,500 – 125 – 7,000/- and DA 20 % with effect from 1.8.2007; having accepted the scale of pay as offered by the management, vide letter dated 19.7.2007, respondent no. 2 started working as P.E.T. with effect from 1.8.2007; there were some complaints about the misconduct of respondent no. 2, therefore, show cause notice was issued to respondent no. 2 on 20.7.2012 calling her explanation; respondent no. 2 furnished her reply on 4.8.2012; Joint Director of the Committee of Management, vide order dated 27.8.2012, was pleased to terminate the services of respondent no. 2 with the stipulation that respondent no. 2 would be paid three months’ salary in lieu of termination of her services; feeling aggrieved, respondent no. 2 preferred Appeal No. 55 of 2012 before the Education Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar; meanwhile, respondent no. 2 has tendered his resignation on 1.10.2012; learned Education Tribunal, vide judgment impugned dated 5.9.2013, was pleased to allow the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 observing that termination order dated 27.8.2012 was without jurisdiction since the same was passed without making compliance of Rule 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975, and was not passed by the Board of Directors as required by the Service Rules of the schools, however, learned Education Tribunal was pleased to hold that since respondent no. 2 herself has tendered resignation on 1.10.2012, therefore, respondent no. 2 shall be paid salary with effect from 27.8.2012 to 1.10.2012 at the pay scale of Rs. 9,300 –34,800/-; feeling aggrieved, school has preferred present writ petition.

3. I have heard Mrs. Anjali Bhargava ((although not argued at all), learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.C. Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, and have carefully perused the record.

4. Rule 11 of the Rules, 1975 reads as under :

“11. Dismissal and removal of Teachers. – No order dismissing, removing or termination the services of a teacher or other employee of a recognized school shall be passed save with the prior approval in writing of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari :

Provided that in case of recognized schools established and administered by minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, such an order shall not require the approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari but shall be reported to him.”

5. The bare perusal of Rule 11 would demonstrate that no order of dismissal, removal or termination of the teacher or other employee of a recognized school shall be passed without prior approval in writing of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.

6. Let me now examine – as to whether petitioner school falls within the definition of “recognised school”, which is sine qua non to attract Rule 11?

7. “Recognised school” is defined under Rule 2 (3), which reads as under :

“2. Definitions. – In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires –

(a) …

(b) …

(c) …

(d) …

(e) ‘Recognised School’ means any Junior Basic School, not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board or any local body, recognised by the Board b