Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) WITH the consent of parties, we have heard the appeal on merit. Respondent no.3-Appellant, aggrieved by order dated 25.01.2008 passed by a learned Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37785 of 2007 and order dated 01.04.2009 passed in Recall Application No. 44273 of 2008, has preferred this special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-respondent no.3 herein, is an Assistant Teacher in Sri Vidya Nand Junior High School Tikgaran, District Meerut. The Committee of Management of the school resolved to terminate her service and the matter was referred to the District Basic Education Officer, Meerut for approval. The District Basic Education Officer by order dated 08.06.2007 declined to approve the resolution terminating her service. It is common ground that the appellant challenged the aforesaid order by filing Writ Petition No. 39298 of 2007, which is pending consideration before this Court. Writ petition-respondent no.3 filed Writ Petition No.37785 of 2007 for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Committee of Management of the school to allow her to join the duty and pay salary. The learned Judge by order dated 25.01.2008 allowed the prayer of writ petitioner- respondent no.3 taking into account that the District Basic Education Officer had declined to approve the resolution of the Committee of Management terminating her service. Mr. K.M. Asthana, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the appointment of writ petitioner-respondent no.3 itself is illegal and her service was rightly terminated. We are afraid the present proceedings are not the appropriate proceedings to go into this question. Appellant has challenged the order of District Basic Education Officer declining to approve the resolution of the Committee of Management terminating the service of writ petitioner-respondent no.3 and all these questions shall be considered in that writ petition. Fact of the matter is that the resolution of termination of service of respondent no.3 has not been approved by the District Basic Education Officer and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said, in law that the writ petitioner-respondent no.3 is not in employment. Once it is so held, the mandamus issued by the learned Judge to permit the writ petitioner-respondent no.3 to join the duty forthwith and pay her regular salary cannot be faulted. Appellant has also prayed for setting aside the order dated 01.04.2009 passed in Recall Application No. 44273 of 2008 whereby the learned Judge has declined to recall the order dated 25.01.2008. As we have held the order dated 25.01.2008 to be legal and valid, the order dated 01.04.2009 cannot be said to be illegal. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. Needless to state that any observation made by us or by the learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 37785 of 2007 shall have no bearing so far as Writ Petition No.39298 of 2007 is concerned, which is pending consideration before this Court.;