H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners' challenge the validity of the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated January 3, 1970 disapproving his appointment as a Principal of the Mahatma Gandhi Intermediate College, Marhpura, Farrukhabad (hereinafter called the College) and also that of the appellate order of the Director of Education, U.P. dated October 27, 1971 (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) upholding the order of the Deputy Director of Education. The facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner No. 2 was appointed as an officiating Principal of the College sometime in the year 1960. In due course he was selected for regular appointment as Principal of the College in the year 1969 and his name was sent to the Deputy Director of Education for according approval as laid down in the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Deputy Director of Education, vide his order dated January 3, 1970 disapproved the appointment of petitioner No. 2 as Principal of the College on the ground that he was related to Sri Bishan Chand Tewari, Manager of the institution. Being aggrieved, petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal before the Director of Education dismissed the appeal vide his order dated October 27, 1971. The case of the petitioners is that the findings aggrieved by the Deputy Director of Education as also by the Director of Education that petitioner No. 2 was related to Sri Bishan Chand Tewari, Manager of the institution, was without any basis. The petitioners deny that petitioner No. 2 was related to Sri Bishan Chand Tewari in any manner. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the sister of Sri Bishan Chand Tewari (Manager of the institution) is married to Sri Nand Ram Dwivjedi, real brother of Sri Raghunandan Prasad Dwivedi (petitioner No. 2). Learned counsel for the petitioners does not admit this relationship. He contends that even if the averments made in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit be taken as correct, the petitioner cannot be considered to be a relation of the Manager for the purpose of appointment as Principal of the College. Regulation No. 4 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under1Section 16-G of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, provided that no teacher shall be appointed, whether in a temporary or clear vacancy in an institution who is related to any member of the Committee of Management or the Principal, or the Head Master, nor shall a Head Master or Principal be appointed in an institution, who is related to any member of the Committee of Management. The explanation added to Regulation 4 stated that for purposes of the Regulation, 'relation' included the following: - "Father, grand-father, faflher-in-law, paternal ar maternal uncle, son, -gandson, son-in-law, brother, daughter, granddaughter, wife, grand-mother, nephew, first coulsin paiternal or maternal, wife's brother, sister's husband, husband, husband's brother, husband's sister, wife's sister, daughter-in-law, sister's sister-in-law being the wife of a brother of first cousin, mother, mother-in-law, aunt-paternal or maternal." Even if what has been stated in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit be correct, Sri Bishan Chand Tewari, Manager of the institution, would not be related to petitioner No. 2 in the manner laid down in Regulation No. 4 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under Section 16-C of the Act and he cannot be considered to be a relation who is disqualified for being appointed as the Principal. It is, thus, clear that the basis of the order of the Deputy Director dated October 27. 1971 passed by the Director of Education disapproving the appointment of the petitioner No. 2 as Principal of the College is misconceived and the two orders which suffer from a manifest error of law cannot be allowed to stand. Learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the allegation made in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, which according to him, disentitle the petitioners to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The two impugned orders are not based on the ground that the petitioner's appointment did not deserve to be approved for the reasons stated in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit. The effect of our order quashing the impugned orders will be that the matter will now go back to the Deputy Director of Education for considering whether on merits the appointment of petitioner No. 2 deserved to be approved of not and that the Deputy Director of Education shall not withhold his approval on the ground that petitioner No. 2 was related to the manager of the institution. It is not for as to substitute in this regard our own judgment in place of the conclusion at which the Deputy Director of Education may, on merits, arrive at. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated January 3, 1970 and October 27, 1971 passed respectively by the Deputy Director of Education and the Director of Education are; quashed. The matter will go back to the Deputy Director of Education for disposing of the question regarding grant of approval for the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.;