- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 28-2-1996 passed by the District Inspector of Schools whereby representation of the petitioner has been rejected.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that one Pramod Prakash Singh was working as Class IV employee in Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Sahabganj, District Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the institution ). THE Principal of the institu tion dismissed him from service on 1-10-1990. He submitted a representation to the Committee of Management and fur ther to the District Inspector of Schools against the order of termination. In the meantime the Principal of the institution appointed the petitioner on the post of peon in the institution on 27-6-1992. The papers were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for ac cording financial sanction. The matter was not decided. The petitioner filed Writ Peti tion No. 11761 of 1994 in this Court. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 5-5.-1995 with the observation that the petitioner can submit a representation to the District Inspector of Schools and on such representation, the District Inspec tor of schools shall dispose of the same by a reasoned order. The petitioner submitted the representation to the District Inspec tor of Schools. The representation has been rejected by the impugned order. I have heard Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State.
(3.) IT is admitted to the learned Coun sel for the petitioner that the order of termination of Pramod Prakash Singh was set aside by the Direcct Inspector of School and he has been reinstated in ser vice with effect from 23-4-1994. The petitioner has confined his claim for pay ment of arrears of salary for the period 6-7-1992 to 24-3-1994, the period he worked in the institution before Pramod Prakash Singh was reinstated in service. The District Inspector of Schools rejected the claim of the petitioner for two reasons. Firstly, the post of Daftari was a promo tional post and no appointment to the post of peon could have been made and second ly, the appointment of the petitioner was subject to the prior approval of the Dis trict Inspector of Schools. The post of Daftari has not been shown as a Class III post. The petitioner was appointment as Class IV employee. He was not claiming any salary for Class III post. The view taken by respondent No. 1 in this respect is erroneous. Regulation 31 provides that if any employee is punished, the prior approval of the District Inspec tor of Schools is required. This provision, however, further indicates that in case of Class IV employee, the employee is to submit an appeal before the Committee of Management and further if the Commit tee of Management has not decided the appeal within six weeks or has rejected the appeal, the employee can submit a repre sentation to the "district Inspector of Schools. In a case of Class IV employee it is not necessary to obtain prior approval from the District Inspector of Schools. After the dismissal of the employee from service, unless the order of stay is given either by the Committee of Management or the District Inspector of Schools, it will be open to the appointing authority to take appropriate steps for filling up the vacancy.;