- (1.) BHARATI Sapru, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioners numbering 1 to 6 were candidates who applied for Class-IV posts in the institution known as Seth Anandram Jaipuriya Inter College, Anand Nagar, Maharajganj. THE petitioners had applied against posts, which were advertised on 28-5-2002. It is the contention of the petitioners that they appeared in the process of selection, faced an interview and were declared successful and were issued letters of appointment on 12- 6-2002 by the Principal of the institution. It is the petitioner's contention that the petitioners were issued letter of appointment by the Principal of the institution and they joined the institution on 14-6-2002, 15-6-2002 and 17-6- 2002. The District Inspector of Schools issued a letter to the Principal of the institution on 25-7-2002 in which he mentioned that some objections were raised by the President of the Regional Committee. Thereafter, the D. I. O. S. issued a letter to the Principal on 1-1-2003 by which, the D. I. O. S. stated that the selections of the petitioners No. 1 to 6 have been made beyond the reservation quota and asked for a report to be sent with regard to the vacancies, which had occurred in the institution in question. Thereafter, letter dated 18-12-2003 had been issued by the Joint Director of Education by which, the appointment of the petitioners have not been approved, rather they have been rejected. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that the D. I. O. S. , Maharajganj had already granted prior approval on 30-4-2002. The letter of the D. I. O. S. dated 30-4-2002 is appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has placed heavy reliance on this letter and has argued that in fact this letter amounted to grant of prior approval to the appointment of the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel has argued in reply that Regulation 101, Chapter III of the U. P. Intermediate Act, 1921 contemplates prior approval to the appointment, which is to be made. The purpose is for the grant of financial sanction. It stands to reason that prior approval to appointment can only be sought before the issuance of the letter of appointment, which can only be issued after completing the process of selection. LEARNED Counsel for the State has argued that Regulation 101 does not contemplate the granting of prior approval to initiate the process of selection. Learned Standing Counsel has argued that the letter on which the petitioner relies dated 24-4-2002 is a letter which was issued much before even the selection process has started and, therefore, cannot be termed as a letter granting prior approval. According to the petitioner also, the process of selection was completed on 12-6-2003. There is no approval, which has been granted after 12-6-2003.;