Termination without mandatory prior approval of the competent authority is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner, working as an In-charge Principal, challenged the order dated 18.08.2026 issued by the Chhattisgarh Diocese Board of Education terminating her services.

She contended that the termination violated Section 6(a)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Ashakiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon ke Vetano ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978, which requires prior approval of the competent authority before dismissal, removal, or termination of a teacher or employee.

The State and the Board fairly conceded that no prior approval had been obtained before issuance of the termination order; a subsequent communication to the District Education Officer did not constitute the statutorily required prior approval.

Whether the termination of the petitioner’s services without prior approval of the competent authority violated Section 6(a)(iii) of the 1978 Act?

Whether the termination order dated 18.08.2026 was legally sustainable in the absence of such prior approval?

The Court applied Section 6(a)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Ashakiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon ke Vetano ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978, which expressly prohibits dismissal, removal, or termination of a teacher or other employee without the prior approval of the competent authority.

The provision makes prior approval a mandatory precondition to termination, distinct from the separate statutory right of appeal against the termination order provided in its proviso.

The Court held that the plain language of Section 6(a)(iii) makes prior approval mandatory before termination of a teacher or employee.

Since the respondents admitted that no approval had been obtained before the impugned order was issued, the statutory precondition was not satisfied.

The subsequent communication to the District Education Officer could not cure the absence of prior approval because the approval was required before, and not after, the termination decision. Consequently, the termination order was legally unsustainable.

The petition was allowed. However, liberty was reserved to the respondent Board and authorities to pass a fresh appropriate order, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law and after complying with the statutory requirement of prior approval.