IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4089 OF 2001 (S/S) Kailash Nath Harbola ………………Petitioner. Versus The Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education, Services Commission, 23, Allenganj, Allaahbad and others. ………….Respondents. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3. 25th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.12.1992, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service w.e.f. 10.11.1985. 2. Vide judgment dated 19th July, 2006, the writ petition had been allowed observing to the following effect: “3. ……Section 21 is reproduced as under:- “21. Restriction on dismissal etc. of teachers.-The Management shall not, except with the prior approval of the Board dismiss any teacher or remove him from service, or serve on him any notice of removal from service, or reduce him in rank or reduce his emoluments or withhold his increment for any period (whether temporarily or permanently) and any such thing done without such prior approval shall be avoid.” 4. This section specifically provides that the order passed dismissing a teacher from service without such prior approval shall be 2 void. It is not in dispute that the Board’s approval was obtained on 15.7.1996 (Annexure –15 to the writ petition) but it was not prior approval. Therefore, in view of Section 21 of U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 the order of termination is void. Once the order is itself void by operation of law, no order is required to quash the same as it is non est. 5. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.” 3. Against the said order allowing the writ petition, a Special Appeal being Defective Special Appeal No. 89 of 2006 was filed by the Committee of Management, Adarsh Inter College, Surai Khet (Bitholi), District Almora. In the said special appeal, vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the order dated 19th July, 2006 passed by this Court was set aside only on the reason stated in paragraph 9 of the judgment. The same is quoted below: “9. On due consideration of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the grounds raised by the writ petitioner in the writ petition for challenging the impugned order of his termination, we are of the opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded for a fresh hearing of the writ petition on all the grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition.” 4. It is settled law that once a writ petition deserves to be allowed on one ground, other grounds are unnecessary to be dealt with. Since the Division Bench has also agreed that there was no approval of termination 3 order under Section 21 of U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982, therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10.12.1992 (Annexure No. XII to the writ petition) is quashed. However, it is made clear that it is open for the Committee of Management to proceed in accordance with law afresh. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma, J.) 25.7.2008 Rathour