Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) The short question involved in this writ petition is as to whether the dismissal of a Class IV employee of an aided institution can be made without the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools. Besides this, a preliminary objection has also been raised by Sri V.S. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 that since neither the State of U.P. nor the Committee of Management of the College where the Class IV employee was employed had been impleaded as respondents, this writ petition would not be maintainable.
(2.) I have heard Sri Dwivedi S.C., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri V.S. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2 and have perused the record.
(3.) Very briefly the facts are that by an order dated 10.2.1984 passed by the petitioner No. 1, the respondent No. 2 who was a permanent Class IV employee of the institution in question had been dismissed from service. On 25.4.1984 the appeal of respondent No. 2 to the Committee of Management was dismissed. Thereafter on 12.9.1984 the District Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 1 remanded the matter back to the Committee of Management for fresh decision on merits. The Committee of Management again reaffirmed its earlier order and upheld the order of dismissal dated 10.2.1984. Then vide order dated 4.2.1985 the District Inspector of Schools did not approve the dismissal of respondent No. 2. Challenging the said order this writ petition has been filed. In the meantime the petitioner No. 1 who is the principal of the institution, had already appointed the petitioner No. 2 as Class IV employee. Interestingly the Principal of the College and the newly appointed Class IV employee have joined hands to file this writ petition. Although it is not understood that how this writ petition would be maintainable jointly by the said petitioners, but I am not inclined to go into this question.;