- (1.) This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment dated 8th January, 2014 on the ground that the learned single Judge has erroneously proceeded to treat the nature of appointments to be in order in accordance with the Regulations prescribed and has issued directions to grant approval and appointment as well as payment of salary to the respondent No. 1. The learned standing counsel contends that such a direction could not have been given keeping in view the provisions contained in the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 for the said purpose, particularly, Regulations 101 to 107 thereof. He further submits that the direction being not in conformity with law, the judgment deserves to be set aside.
(2.) Sri Parihar on the other hand contends that the vacancy being available and the procedure having been followed, the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge should not be interfered with.
(3.) Having considered the submissions raised, we find that the learned single Judge has observed that seeking permission from the District Inspector of Schools is a mere formality and can be waived off in the light of several decisions. To this proposition, we are unable to find any support in law and to the contrary the Full Bench decision on this issue appears to have ruled otherwise. Neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the respondents appear to have brought to the notice of the learned single Judge the Full Bench decision in the case of Rishikesh Lal Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2009 5 ESC 3073. Consequently, the interest of justice would be served if the matter is heard again after exchange of affidavits and taking notice of the law laid down by the Full Bench as indicated hereinabove.;