Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has sought the quashing of the orders dated 15th December, 2005 and 9th January, 2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi refusing to grant financial approval to the payment of salary to the petitioner who had been appointed on a Class IV post in the Anglo Oriental Muslim Intermediate College, Lallapura, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the ''College') which is recognised under THE U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'). It is the assertion of the petitioner that on retirement of one Mohd. Bismillah Khan who was working as a Chowkidar on 31st January, 2005, the Principal of the College, who is the appointing authority, repeatedly sought instructions from the District Inspector of Schools for making appointment on the Class IV post that had fallen vacant as provided for in Regulation 101 of the Regulations contained in Chapter III of the Act but as the District Inspector of Schools did not issue any instructions, the Principal of the College after having waited for ten months, notified the vacancy in two newspapers namely Dainik Jagran and Hindustan Times on 7th September, 2005 and thereafter in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the aforesaid Regulation appointed the petitioner on Class IV post on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee by the order dated 9th December, 2005. It is also his assertion that the Principal of the College thereafter intimated the District Inspector of Schools for granting approval to the payment of salary. THE District Inspector of Schools, however, for six reasons mentioned in the communication dated 15th December, 2005, declined to grant approval. Subsequently, the Principal by his communication dated 28th December, 2005 submitted detailed explanation to each of the six grounds but without examining the reply submitted by the Principal, the District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 9th January, 2006, in a cryptic manner, reiterated his earlier order. THEse orders dated 15th December, 2005 and 9th January, 2006 have been impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure prescribed for in Regulations 101 to 106 contained in Chapter III of the Act had been duly followed by the Principal while making the appointment. It is his assertion that the Principal had repeatedly sought instructions from the District Inspector of Schools for making appointment on the Class IV post after the vacancy had arisen but since no instructions were received, the Principal issued an advertisement which was published in the newspapers and thereafter on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, he was given appointment and in support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Ranjan and Ors. Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and Ors, 2005 (3) LBSER 454. He further submitted that the explanation submitted by the Principal of the College has not been considered at all and in a cryptic manner on the basis of the decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No.10836 of 2003 (Mohammad Eslam Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) decided on 9th May, 2005 he has reiterated the earlier order even though this decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order should be quashed and a direction be issued for payment of salary to the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the appointing authority has to take prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools in respect of non-teaching staff but this was not followed in the present case. He submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It transpires from the records that initially the District Inspector of Schools had refused to grant financial approval for six reasons mentioned in the order dated 15th December, 2005. However, the Principal of the College had sent a communication dated 28th December, 2005 giving explanation in respect of each of the six reasons mentioned in the order dated 15th December, 2005 but subsequently by the order dated 9th January, 2006, the District Inspector of Schools has merely reiterated the earlier order dated 15th December, 2005 in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No.10836 of 2003. It is, therefore, clear that the District Inspector of Schools has not dealt with any of the explanation submitted by the Principal of the College in the communication dated 28th December, 2005. THE order also does not indicate as to how the decision rendered in Writ Petition No.10836 of 2003 would be applicable. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 9th January, 2006 cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. THE District Inspector of Schools shall now pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the reply sent by the Principal of the College on 28th December, 2005. THE writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.;