Prior approval requirement invalidated teacher termination where the university-affiliation statute was not followed.

Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 required dismissal or removal of a teacher in an affiliated college to be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and to take effect only after approval. Because the college was bound by that statutory safeguard, a termination made without prior approval was invalid. The earlier Vice-Chancellor's order had already held the first termination bad for non-compliance with the Act and University Regulations, and the management had accepted that decision and proceeded afresh. The fresh termination therefore breached the governing framework, while reliance on the repealed Agra Universities Act, 1926 was inapposite because it lacked a comparable approval requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the termination of the appellant could stand without prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, and whether the earlier order setting aside the first termination had binding effect.

Analysis: Section 35(2) required every decision to dismiss or remove a teacher of an affiliated college to be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and to take effect only after approval. The college, being affiliated to the University, was bound by that statutory requirement. The earlier order of the Vice-Chancellor had already found the first termination bad for want of prior approval and for non-compliance with the University Regulations, and the management had accepted that order and proceeded afresh. Having acted upon that order and allowed it to attain finality, the management could not later disown the statutory obligation. The fresh termination was therefore in direct violation of the governing statutory framework. Reliance on the decision under the repealed Agra Universities Act, 1926 was held to be inapposite because that regime did not contain a comparable approval requirement.

Conclusion: The termination was invalid and was set aside. The appellant was held entitled to reinstatement, with liberty to the management to proceed afresh in accordance with law from the stage of irregularity.

---