V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the order dated 27.08.2007 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi proceeding to reject the claim of the petitioner for the post of Class IV employee at Arya Kanya Inter College, Sipri Bazar Jhansi. Brief background of the case is that in the District of Jhansi there is recognized Girls Intermediate College known as Arya Kanya Inter College, Sipri Bazar Jhansi. Said institution in question is to be run and managed as per the provision as contained under U.P. Act No. II of 1921 and Regulation framed thereunder. Said institution in question is in grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the provision as U.P. High Schools & Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act 1971 is fully applicable to the said institution. In the said institution concerned permission was sought for, from the District Inspector of Schools for making selection and appointment against class IV posts. District Inspector of Schools has accorded permission on 12.10.1998 and thereafter vacancy in question was advertised on 26.01.1999. Petitioner claims that she and one Pradeep Kumar were selected for being appointed as Class IV employees in the institution concerned and papers in question were transmitted to District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi under covering letter dated 05.03.1999 and after the said papers were transmitted the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi on 30.03.1999 raised objection qua the said appointment which has been made. To the said objection which has been raised, the Principal of the institution submitted his reply on 12.05.1999 and as nothing was done in the matter and the matter was kept pending as such at the said juncture Pradeep Kumar and petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35068 of 1999 and this Court on 18.08.1999 passed following order which is being quoted below: "The approval to the appointments have been refused by the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi by the impugned order dated 30.03.1999 on the these grounds mentioned therein in the writ petition it has been stated that permission for filling up vacancies were obtained from the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi and was granted by the order dated 12.10.1998 thus the second ground mentioned in the impugned order is not correct as per advertisement in the writ petition. Similarly ground no. 3 mentioned in the impugned order is also stated to be not correct as vacancies were advertised in the newspaper "Maulik Adhikar" dated 26.01.1999. Regarding the first ground prima facie it appears that while granting the permission dated 10.12.1998 District Inspector of Schools, must have examined the vacancies. In view of this the District Inspector of Schools will take a decision with regard to the approval within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The petitioners will be permitted to furnish before the District Inspector of Schools a copy of the permission dated 12.10.1998 and the true copy of the newspaper in which the vacancies were advertised and also the figures showing the existence of vacancies on which the appointment have taken place. If these papers have already been submitted these need not be submitted again. With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of. " Pursuant to the order passed by this Court District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi proceeded to pass order dated 15.11.1999. Against the said order Pradeep Kumar and petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16410 of 2000. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition it appears that Pradeep Kumar was representing the matter and ultimately District Inspector of Schools has re-examined the entire matter and passed order that appointment of Pradeep Kumar was in accordance with Rule and same has been made after proper selection and further directed that financial approval, will be accorded after approval by the Regional Level Committee is accorded. Regional Level Committee thereafter has accorded approval to the appointment of Pradeep Kumar on 22.02.2002 and District Inspector of Schools on 22.02.2002 passed order of financial approval to the appointment of Pradeep Kumar. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16410 of 2000 was finally decided on 02.07.2007 and this Court passed following order which is being quoted below: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The dispute relates to appointment of petitioners as Class IV employees in Arya Kanya Inter College, Sipri Bazar Jhansi. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by District Inspector of Schools dated 09.12.2001. From perusal of the aforesaid order it transpires that District Inspector of Schools has recorded finding that on the date of advertisement there were two vacancies. District Inspector of Schools by order dated 09.12.2001 accorded concurrence to appointment of Pradeep Kumar. Nothing has been stated in the impugned order for not giving any concurrence to petitioner no. 2. It transpires that prior approval was taken from District Inspector of Schools before initiating the proceedings for selection and appointment of Class IV post. Pradeep Kumar and Smt. Malti Sharma were selected as Class IV employee. According to petitioner no. 2 she was also given appointment subject to approval/selection. In the counter affidavit only the ground mentioned was that there were only 16 post of Class IV. Approval for payment of salary was withheld on the ground that two writ petitions were pending in this Court which were already disposed of. Now the finding recorded by the District Inspector of Schools in its order dated 09.12.2001 resolved the dispute of vacancy and it is established that there were two vacancies. The District Inspector of Schools has already granted approval of appointment to Pradeep Kumar. The case of petitioner no. 2 is similar situated. There is nothing on record to discriminate the case of petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 1 Pradeep Kumar. Counter Affidavit also does not show any difference in the case of petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 1 Pradeep Kumar Material on record further makes it clear that Pradeep Kumar and petitioner no. 2 were selected and appointed. This court is of the view that matter be relegated to District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi to pass appropriate orders so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned in accordance with law taking the observations made in the body of the judgment considering within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of finally." Thereafter District Inspector of Schools passed order dated 27.08.2007 which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State and therein it has been sought to be contended that order dated 27.08.2007 has been passed after appropriate adjudication and consideration of the record and further it has also been stated that subsequent selection proceedings had been undertaken wherein Smt. Malti Sharma has appeared in interview, as such relief claimed cannot be accorded. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6 also and therein stand to the similar effect has been taken that in subsequent selection, petitioner had appeared and had participated in the interview wherein she was not selected as such her stale claim cannot be considered. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned the counter affidavit and reiterating the averments mentioned in the writ petition. After respective arguments have been advanced present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Sri Satish Mandhayan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case issue which has already been settled by this Court has been tried to be reopened by respondents by taking total new pleas, in this background petitioner has been metted with arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, whereas her claim was in parity to claim of Pradeep Kumar as such writ petition deserves to the allowed. Countering the said submission learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter and petitioner is not at all entitled for any relief or reprieve from this Court, as such writ petition as it has been framed and drawn deserves to be dismissed. After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present cause and which is not disputed that earlier petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16410 of 2000 alongwith Pradeep Kumar and during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, as far as Pradeep Kumar is concerned against whom similar order has been passed refusing to accord approval to his appointment, on the recommendation of the District Inspector of Schools, Regional Level Committee proceeded to consider his claim and accorded approval to his appointment by taking decision on 22.02.2002 and pursuant thereto District Inspector of Schools on 22.02.2002 also proceeded to accord financial approval to the said appointment. Said decision which has been taken by the Regional Level Committee was on the recommendation of the District Inspector of Schools dated 09.12.2001. The tenor of the said reference which has been made by the Regional Level Committee on 09.12.2001 clearly showed and established that two posts were lying vacancy at the said point of time when Pradeep Kumar was appointed and further this much has also come that vacancy in question has been properly advertised and thereafter selection proceedings has been validly made, in this background his appointment was liable to be approved. Thus, in pith and substance selection proceedings which has been undertaken qua Pradeep Kumar as well as petitioner has been held to be valid and genuine by Regional Level Committee on the recommendation made by District Inspector of Schools on 09.12.2001. This Court while passing final judgment on 02.07.2007 noted all these facts and also clearly noted that there is nothing on record to discriminate the case of petitioner no. 1 Pradeep Kumar and petitioner no. 2, petitioner, Smt. Malti Sharma of the present writ petition and further noted that counter affidavit has also been filed without disclosing that there any different in the case of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2. In the said background District Inspector of Schools was directed to pass appropriate order. District Inspector of Schools in the present case, most surprisingly has not at all cared to look into this aspect of the matter that this Court had already recorded categorical finding vis-a-viz the claim of petitioner, that her claim was identical to the claim of Pradeep Kumar. Once categorical finding of facts were there then by mentioning that petitioner had appeared in subsequent selection proceedings and taken her chance, as such her claim can not be accepted, cannot be approved of. Petitioner has vehemently disputed her subsequent undertaking of selection process, however same will make no difference for the simple reason that petitioner's right is based on selection proceedings held in the year 1999 and not on the basis of subsequent selection held in the year 2002. View taken by the District Inspector of Schools is thus, not subscribed from any count. Consequently, order dated 27.08.2007 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to ensure issuance of appointment letter and also ensuring future salary of the petitioner in lieu of her working and all other notional benefits shall be extended to her from the date Pradeep Kumar has been appointed and has been functioning. With the above direction present writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.;