- (1.) -HEARD Sri V. K. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) A Class-IV post became vacant in the institution upon the retirement of Sri jawahar on 31. 3. 2006. The Principal, being the competent authority, issued an advertisement in a daily newspaper on 17. 6. 2006 inviting applications for filling up the said post. The Principal also wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools seeking permission to fill up the said post. The District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 19. 6. 2006, granted permission to the institution to fill up the vacancy. Based on the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner also applied and was selected by the competent authority and, an appointment letter dated 28. 6. 2006 was issued. The necessary papers were forwarded by the Principal to the District Inspector of Schools for financial approval. The District Inspector of Schools, by an order dated 19. 9. 2006, refused to accord financial sanction to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that previous permission had not been obtained by the institution before advertising the post and that only 11 days' time was given to the applicant to apply for the said post instead of 15 days. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) REGULATION 101 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act provides as under: "101. Appointing Authority except with prior approval of Inspector shall not fill up any vacancy of non-teaching post of any recognized aided institution: provided that filling of the vacancy on the post of Jamadar may be granted by the Inspector. " the provision contemplates that prior approval of the Inspector is required before filling up any vacancy. The moot question which arises for consideration is, whether prior approval is required before advertising the said post or be-fore issuing the appointment letter. A Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Singh v. State of U. P. and others,2006 (2)UPLBEC 1851=2006 (64) ALR 17 (sum ). has held as under: "the observation of the learned Single Judge in Ram Dhani's case (supra) that previous approval under Regulation 101 is required to be taken before issuing advertisement for filling up vacancy does not lay down correct law. We, however, make it clear that although prior approval is required from the District Inspector of Schools after completion of process of selection but there is no prohibition in the Principle/management to seek permission of the District Inspector of Schools for filling up vacancy by direct recruitment. The permission may or may not be granted by the District Inspector of Schools but even if such permission to start the selection process or to issue advertisement is granted that is not akin to prior approval as contemplated under Regulation 101. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that prior approval contemplated under Regulation 101 is prior approval by the District Inspector of Schools after completion of process of selection and before issuance of appointment letter to the selected candidate. ";