- (1.) ALOKE Chakrabarti, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) IT appears that the impugned order dated 16-12-1997 at Annexure No. 10 to the Writ Petition was passed refusing ap proval to the petitioner's appointment holding the same td be illegal but no reason has been given for holding the same to be illegal. In view of the question raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel agrees to final Disposal of this Writ Petition at this stage without filing counter- affidavit. As the impugned order does not disclose any reason whatsoever and the contention of the petitioner is that his appointment was against a short term vacancy and it requires to be considered as regards its validity, I allow this Writ Peti tion and quash the impugned order dated 16-12-1997 at Annexure No. 10 to the Writ Petition. The respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of financial approval in respect of his appointment by a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In so deciding the matter the District In spector of Schools will give opportunity to the committee of management and the petitioner. .;