Visheshwar Nath Khare, J. - (1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for parties. The learned Counsel for parties are agreed that this Special Appeal may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. We accordingly proceed to decide this Special Appeal. Miss Shailja Shah, the appellant, before us was appointed as a teacher in Madan Mohan Malviya Public School, Aligarh (here -in -after referred to as the institution). Admittedly, at the relevant time, the institution was a recognised institution. On 19.5.1994 the services of the appellant were terminated. Aggrieved appellant filed a writ petition in this court, challenging the order of termination of her services. One of the ground taken in the writ petition was that no prior approval has been obtained by the Committee of Management of the institution before terminating the services of the appellant. This fact was admitted before the learned single judge. Rule -11 of U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teachers and other conditions) Rules, 1975 provides that the services of a teacher of basic school shall not be terminated unless prior approval of District Basic Education Officer is obtained to that effect.
(2.) IN view of the admitted position that no prior approval was obtained from the District Basic Education Officer, the learned Single Judge by the judgment and order dated 9.9.1994 held that the order of termination was not valid. However, learned Single Judge even after observing that in view of the fact that no prior approval of the District Basic Education Officer was obtained and as such, termination of the services of the appellant is illegal, held that since on the date of passing of the order, the institution is not recognised, as such, no relief can be granted. This Special Appeal is directed against the said order of the learned Single Judge. It may be mentioned that the management also filed a Special Appeal No. 722 of 1994, challenging the findings of the learned Single Judge that the order of termination of the appellant's services was illegal. The said special appeal was dismissed by a bench of this Court on 7.10.1994. Sri. U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that no relief can be granted to the appellant is patently erroneous. After hearing the learned counsel for parties, we find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for appellant. Admittedly, the date on which the appellant's services were terminated, the institution was a recognised institution and as such, it was incumbent upon the management to have obtained the approval of the District Basic Education Officer. We may point out that expression prior approval and approval connotes different situation, where a statute uses the term prior approval anything done without the prior approval, is nullity. However, where a statute employs expression approval, in such cases subsequent rectification can make the act valid. But such is not the position in the present case - -since no prior approval was obtained before terminating the services of the appellant and as such termination of the services of the appellant was illegal and void and the appellant was entitled to the relief as claimed for. We accordingly set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge to extent he held that no relief can be granted to the appellant as the institution is not a recognised institution. The special Appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.;