COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 7224/2001 (Old No. 39478/1992) Dhan Prakash Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikar, Haridwar And Other …….Respondents Sri S. Dhulia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vipul Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1. Sri Sharad Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2. 30th April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as Head Master of the School known as Devta Bhureyshah Trust Mata Shakumbhari Devi Junior High School, Manglore, District Haridwar, and make the payment of the salary to the petitioner since May, 1991.” (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Head Master of the said School. 2 (iii) to pass any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances. (iv) to award the costs of the petition to the petitioner.” 2. Facts, in brief, are that there is a Junior High School known as Devta Bhurey Shah Trust Mata Shakumbhari Devi Junior High School, Manglore, Haridwar, which is a recognized institution under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Petitioner was appointed as a Head Master of the aforesaid school and his appointment was approved w.e.f. 1.4.1977 by the District Basic Education Officer vide his letter dated 4.2.1982. Later on petitioner was suspended on the ground of embezzlement and an enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the matter. Petitioner was given several notices but he never participated in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry committee found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be fully proved and submitted its report dated 16.5.1991 recommending punishment of termination from service. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent no. 2 w.e.f. 18.5.1991. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. Petitioner has not challenged the order of termination which is evident from the prayers quoted above. Dismissal was duly approved vide letter dated 1.7.1992 as has been stated in para 15 of the counter affidavit. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner very 3 vehemently argued that there should be prior approval and it should be pre-decisional and not the post- decisional. The argument is misconceived. Prior approval means that order of dismissal shall take effect after the approval of District Basic Education Officer. In the present case, the decision of the Committee of Management of the School was forwarded to the District Basic Education Officer and after the approval, the decision has come into force. Therefore, there is no question of pre-decisional approval. 5. In view of the above discussion and conclusion, writ petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed accordingly. No writ of mandamus can be issued for payment of salary to the petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 30.4.2008 Prabodh